slack_get_channel_info

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 'Get detailed information' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive, requires authentication, or what happens on errors (e.g., invalid channel_id). For a simple get, this is somewhat acceptable, but the description adds no context beyond the obvious and does not disclose potential caveats like rate limits or response size.

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 extremely concise with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured with an 'Args' and 'Returns' format, making it easy to scan. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first line defines the action, the Args line clarifies the parameter, and the Returns line outlines the output. No fluff 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?

The tool is simple with a single required parameter and an output schema is present. The description covers the parameter format and a preview of the return fields. It does not explain error handling or authentication requirements, but these are common expectations for Slack API calls. Given the simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a note on required scopes would elevate it.

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 only defines 'channel_id' as a string with no further description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the expected format: 'Channel ID (starts with C, D, or G)' and also previews the return content ('name, topic, purpose, member count'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, giving an agent clear guidance on how to supply the parameter and what to expect.

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 action: 'Get detailed information about a Slack channel.' It specifies the resource (a Slack channel) and the result (detailed information). It is distinct from sibling tools like listing channels or history, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself. The name and description together make the purpose unambiguous, but there is no explicit contrast with alternatives.

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 does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and basic action.

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