slack_net_say

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does clearly expose the side effect—posting to a specific Slack channel—and that is the core behavior. But it does not mention what happens to the message, response behavior, or any constraints around structured receipts.

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 entire description is one tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the action, target, and payload type into very few words, and every word 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 three-parameter post tool with all parameters documented in the schema, this description is mostly complete: it names the exact channel and the intended use. It falls just short of 5 because it does not explain the structure of a 'fleet receipt' nor give guidance on the `event` parameter.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that `text` carries message/receipt content and names the default channel, but it does not clarify `event` semantics or what makes a message a 'structured fleet receipt' beyond what the schema already says.

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 specific verb ('Post'), a concrete destination ('JBP Tech Slack-Net (#ai-work C0BSRE6QBU0)'), and an intended payload type ('fleet receipt or message'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like slack_net_read, which is the read counterpart.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the description suggests this tool is for posting receipts/messages into Slack-Net, and the sibling name slack_net_read implies the read/write split. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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