slack_stdio_reauth

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a browser opens, returns a URL, and optionally blocks until Allow or timeout. It also mentions retrying the previous tool. Missing details like timeout duration or failure handling are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 logically structured from trigger to action to follow-up, with each sentence adding meaningful detail. It is slightly verbose but not wasteful, earning a solid score.

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?

It covers when to call, what the tool does, what it returns, and the retry action. Since there is no output schema, the description explains the return value (clickable URL). Minor omissions like error handling do not significantly impact usability.

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 100% and already describes wait. The description adds the 'or timeout' nuance and clarifies blocking behavior, which is extra value beyond the schema. This justifies a score above the baseline 3.

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 identifies the tool as initiating Slack re-authorization, opens a browser, and returns a clickable URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other Slack operations (catalog, messages, reactions), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when a Slack session has expired and before any Slack action. It also instructs to retry the previous Slack tool after success, providing a clear trigger and follow-up, which effectively implies when not to use it.

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