Get My Slack Identity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds value by explicitly stating it returns user ID, username, team name, and team ID, and that it verifies the connection—useful context beyond the annotations.

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: two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no-parameter auth test tool, the description fully covers the behavior, return values, and use case. Annotations provide safety context, and the description fills in return details that would otherwise be absent. No output schema exists, but the description covers that need.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema already tells the agent nothing is required. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments', so the agent can confidently infer no inputs are needed. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses specific verbs ('check', 'verify') and clearly identifies the resource (the Slack identity associated with the token). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like slack_lookup_user and slack_get_user_info by focusing on the authenticated user's own identity, not arbitrary users.

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 clearly implies the primary use case: verifying connection and retrieving self-identity. It notes that it takes no arguments and lists return values, giving enough context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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