slack_stdio_session_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the output (re-auth progress and URL) but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, what happens when a session is valid, or any error conditions. The opening 'No Slack session' is misleading—it may be a static message rather than a reflection of tool behavior, and it does not clarify the tool's actual side effects.

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 short but not concise because the first sentence is an instruction to the agent ('Ask the user to authorize...') rather than a description of the tool. This waste of space confuses the reader and dilutes the actual functional description. The useful information is buried in the second sentence.

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 there is no output schema, the description must fully explain the return value and behavior. It only mentions reporting re-auth flow and a URL, but does not describe the full set of possible statuses (e.g., session valid, no session, re-auth in progress) or how they are encoded. An agent cannot reliably interpret the tool's result or handle all cases.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage of 100% (empty schema), so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from this; it simply does not add anything beyond what the empty schema already implies.

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 name 'session_status' combined with the description's second sentence clearly states the tool reports whether a Slack re-auth flow is in progress and any authorize URL. This distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like slack_stdio_reauth or update_message. However, the first sentence 'No Slack session. Ask the user to authorize Slack...' is ambiguous—it reads as a directive rather than a neutral description, muddying the purpose.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. The sentence 'Ask the user to authorize Slack before any Slack action, then retry' implies a precondition check, but does not explicitly state 'use this tool to check if a session exists before invoking other Slack tools.' It also does not mention the sibling slack_stdio_reauth as a fallback or differentiate when to use reauth.

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