send_to_slack

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses behaviors: posts a root anchor message (Block Kit task card when title/status/checks/links given), threads images, returns JSON with review_id and permalink, explains notify behavior (broadcasts to channel when replying), and default channel. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficient, with three sentences that front-load the main action and detail. Parentheticals add necessary context without being overly verbose. It avoids unnecessary words, though could be slightly more compact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 10 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is very complete. It explains the overall flow, return value structure (review_id and permalink), parameter usage for all key fields, and mentions polling with wait_for_review. It covers essential behavioral details for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: e.g., title is 'used as the Block Kit card header AND the file title in Slack,' checks are 'Name→value facts shown as card fields,' images are 'Posted in order as ONE Slack message,' and notify is 'Ignored for a new review.' These details enhance understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Post one or more existing image files to Slack as a review.' It specifies the action (posting), resource (image files to Slack), and purpose (review). It also distinguishes from siblings by calling itself 'the primary tool' and noting the returned review_id can be polled with wait_for_review, setting it apart from other tools like ask_review or capture_window.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: 'This is the primary tool: pair it with a repro/test that renders the result to a PNG.' It explains that it posts a root anchor message and threads images, and that the review_id can be polled. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly to siblings, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.