slack_stdio_scheduled_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the actions (list/cancel) but does not specify that cancel is permanently destructive or that list is read-only; nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects. While the actions are clear, the behavioral consequences are not fully disclosed, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.

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 succinct sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence names the two operations and the API methods, and the second compactly explains the parameter rules per action. Information is front-loaded, and every clause contributes to understanding how to use the tool.

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 only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary input scenarios and even links a related tool limitation. What's missing are details about return values (e.g., list response format) and potential errors, which would round out the picture but are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 already documents each parameter individually, but the description adds crucial relational semantics by grouping parameters by action: for list, channel_id is optional; for cancel, both channel_id and scheduled_message_id are required. This clarifies the parameter interplay beyond the schema's flat descriptions, making it easier for an agent to construct valid calls.

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 states specific verbs ('List or cancel') with a concrete resource ('scheduled messages') and includes the underlying API method names, making the tool's function unambiguous. It also implicitly differentiates from siblings (e.g., delete_message, update_message) by name and by the explicit mention of scheduled messages, so no agent would confuse it with related tools.

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 notes that 'Hosted slack_schedule_message cannot cancel,' which tells the agent when to choose this tool over its counterpart for cancellation. It also breaks down the two modes (list vs cancel) with their required parameters, providing clear usage context, though it doesn't mention scenarios where listing might be preferred over other tools.

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