slack_net_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a non-mutating read of recent data, which is helpful, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, auth requirements, or behavior when no messages exist. These gaps are acceptable for a simple read tool but not fully transparent.

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?

One sentence with no filler, placing the action and scope first. It is immediately parseable and every word contributes to meaning.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description states the source and return topics but leaves the exact result shape, ordering, and how the limit applies unspecified. It is minimally adequate with room for more detail.

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 the single optional limit parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level explanation, so it earns the baseline score of 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 states a clear verb ('Read'), a resource ('Slack-Net'), and specific content types (fleet messages, status reports, receipts). It is easy to distinguish from the write-oriented sibling slack_net_say by name and wording, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 implies a read/receive use case, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over slack_net_say or other siblings, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is inferred from 'read' rather than explained.

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