arvan_notify_slack

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about the webhook_url fallback to an environment variable, which helps the agent understand configuration. No additional side effects are disclosed, but the tool is simple.

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-loading the action and adding key detail about the environment variable. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and optional parameter configuration. It does not mention return values or error handling, but these are not essential given low complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only addresses webhook_url (optional, falls back to env var), but does not describe the 'text' parameter (required string, presumably the message content). This leaves ambiguity for the required parameter.

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 'Post' and the resource 'message to a Slack incoming webhook,' making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from sibling notification tools like arvan_notify_email and arvan_notify_telegram by specifying Slack.

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 implies usage via the tool name and explicit mention of Slack, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, context signals (sibling tools) make the intended use case clear.

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