channels_trigger_typing

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true), the description explains that repeat calls extend the indicator, adding behavioral nuance. The ~10-second duration and the return shape ({ok, channel_id}) are additional transparency not found in structured data.

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?

Structured in four short sections, each sentence provides distinct value—purpose, use cases, non-use case, and return info. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with one parameter, output schema, and full annotations, the description covers all needed context: when to use, what it returns, and idempotency behavior. It is complete.

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 schema already provides a description for channel_id with 100% coverage, and the tool description does not add further detail. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Show the bot as typing in a channel for ~10 seconds,' a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like messages_send by focusing solely on the typing indicator.

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 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections explicitly state when to invoke this tool (long-running operations) and when not to (replacement for messages). This provides clear guidance relative to sibling messaging tools.

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