slack_triage

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool is hosted-only and has pricing limits, and details the return fields. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with 'returns triage decisions' (no mutation). No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the core purpose and then elaborate on return format and constraints. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the return fields and optional parameters. It also covers hosting and pricing. The only minor gap is not mentioning how the profile is created, but that is covered in the parameter description.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add new semantic details about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('classify and route'), the resource ('Slack threads'), and the output (triage decisions with specific fields). It directly distinguishes this triage tool from sibling tools like slack_send_message or slack_search_messages.

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 context about hosting and pricing, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., slack_workflows or manual thread review). It implies usage for triaging threads but does not state 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.