slack_catch_me_up

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantial context on top: it runs locally against your own session with no hosted account or server-side model, and it discloses exactly how the `continuity` block is derived (phrase and reply-count rules over the same messages, with matched text and a permalink per row). That is real behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the dense sentences each carry distinct information (scope, thread expansion, return shape, continuity derivation, output_contract usage). It is one long paragraph and slightly overstuffed, but there is little pure filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: it names `signals`, `continuity`, `conversations`, and the `output_contract` keys, and even instructs how to compose the summary. An agent has everything needed to call it and consume the result.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents both. The description restates `since` and the cadence-window defaults, which the schema also covers, adding little new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Catch up on a saved workflow profile') and enumerates exactly what it does: reads the profile's channels, pulls messages since a window, expands threads, and returns structured evidence. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like slack_conversations_unreads (unfiltered unreads) and slack_conversations_history, and it names the profile tools it depends on.

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?

Gives clear context: operates on a profile saved via slack_workflow_save, listed with slack_workflows, and falls back to 'everything currently unread' when the profile names no channels. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this over a plain unread/history/search call, so the routing decision is inferred rather than spelled out.

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