slack_refresh_tokens

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely useful non-annotation context by disclosing that it reaches into local Chrome state and is macOS-only. It stops short of describing failure behavior when no Chrome session exists.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the platform/prerequisite constraints tucked into a compact parenthetical. Nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does, how it does it, and where it works, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits what happens on failure (e.g., Chrome not running or no Slack session) and any note that other operations may need re-auth afterward.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter semantics to convey; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies there are no inputs to supply.

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 ('force refresh tokens') plus the actual mechanism ('extracting from Chrome'), which is far more informative than the name alone. It is distinguishable from slack_token_status (which likely just reports state) and slack_health_check, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 parenthetical gives a precondition (macOS, signed into Slack in Chrome), which implies when the tool can run, but there is no statement of when an agent should prefer this over slack_token_status or slack_health_check, and no guidance for non-macOS environments.

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