slack_auth_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns and implies it is a safe check, but it does not explicitly mention that it makes no modifications, how it handles invalid tokens, or whether specific scopes are required. This is acceptable for a simple auth test but leaves some gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and lists the return fields in a clear second sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 the tool has no parameters, a low-complexity operation, and an output schema that likely details the returned fields, the description is sufficiently complete. An agent can determine when to call it and what to expect without needing further context or caveats.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details to document. The description appropriately explains what the tool does without needing to add parameter-level semantics, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Test Slack authentication') and identifies the resource (token owner), then enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like slack_get_user_info, which focus on retrieving user data rather than verifying auth connectivity.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to verify the connection is working.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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