slack_get_channel_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the return format ('List of messages with pagination metadata') and explains pagination via cursor, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It is adequate but not exhaustive for a read-only tool.

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 well-structured with an Args/Returns format. It front-loads the purpose, then lists each parameter concisely, and ends with the return value. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 six parameters and the presence of an output schema (which covers return details), the description covers all input semantics and pagination. It omits error scenarios but is otherwise complete for a simple read operation. Slight gap on potential failure modes.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. It explains every parameter: channel_id type, limit range/default, cursor for pagination, oldest/latest timestamp usage, and inclusive boundary behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 verb and resource: 'Get message history from a Slack channel.' It differentiates from siblings like slack_search_messages (search) and slack_get_thread_replies (replies) by focusing on raw channel history. The channel_id types (C, D, G) add specificity.

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 clearly implies usage for retrieving message history, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It provides clear context without exclusions, which matches the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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