slack_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says it checks status, which implies a read/safe operation, but doesn't disclose whether it makes network calls, caches results, what error behavior it has (e.g., does it throw or return an error status?), or what the output structure looks like. It's a simple tool but leaves behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence with zero waste - it's appropriately minimal for a simple tool. It could slightly expand on what 'status' returns, but as it stands it's efficient and front-loaded with the action verb.

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?

An output schema exists, which reduces the need to explain return values. Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, output schema present), the description is mostly adequate. However, for a status-check tool, it could add a sentence about what the expected status values mean or when to interpret results, given users may want preflight checks before other Slack operations.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter account_id is documented with 'Slack credential account ID, usually "default"' plus a default value. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema fully documents the parameter and there's only one, the baseline of 3 applies. The 'usually default' hint is provided by the schema, not the description.

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 the tool checks Slack connection status with a specific verb ("Check") and resource ("Slack connection status"). However, it's quite minimal and doesn't clarify what 'status' means - is it authentication validity, server connectivity, or API access? The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what status information is returned.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Although it seems logically distinct from siblings like list_slack_channels or search_slack_messages, there's no explicit or implicit statement about when to check connection status before performing Slack operations. The tool would benefit from a note like 'use before Slack operations to verify connectivity.'

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