Slack MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a dictionary with bot identity information, which is helpful, but lacks details on authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and a note on the return value. It avoids unnecessary details, but the 'Returns:' section could be integrated more smoothly, and there's minor formatting with extra quotes and indentation that slightly affects structure.

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 that there are no parameters, annotations are absent, and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and output type, but for a tool in a server with many siblings, it could benefit from more context on how it fits into the broader system, such as distinguishing it from user-focused tools.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters are present, and the description doesn't contradict the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get information about the authenticated bot user.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('bot user'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_info' or 'get_team_info', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_user_info' for non-bot users, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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