openid_connect_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the basic exchange but omits critical details: the need for client_id and client_secret (though schema shows required), PKCE support, the grant type options, or what happens on error. No mention of rate limits, security considerations, or the token's response format.

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 a single, concise sentence of 15 words. Every word is necessary to convey the core function. There is no redundant information. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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's complexity (7 parameters, part of an OAuth flow) and the existence of an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the tool's role in the broader OAuth flow (e.g., that the code must be obtained via a prior authorization redirect to the app's redirect URI). An AI agent without additional context may misuse the tool or confuse it with similar token-exchange tools.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, each with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema; it merely states the overall action. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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?

The description clearly states the tool exchanges a temporary OAuth code for an access token, specifically for Sign in with Slack. The verb 'Exchange' and resource 'temporary OAuth code for an access token' are specific, and the mention of 'Sign in with Slack' distinguishes it from generic OAuth token tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like oauth_v2_access or openid_connect_user_info.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like oauth_v2_access or openid_connect_user_info. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a code from a prior authorization request) or context (e.g., that this is part of the OpenID Connect flow). No when/when-not advice is given.

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