Get status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds only the self-vs-other targeting rule; it says nothing about what the status payload contains (text, emoji, expiration) or any rate/auth constraints.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the primary self-lookup case front-loaded before the optional user override.

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 single-optional-param read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the definition is essentially complete. The only shortfall is the absence of any hint about the returned status fields, which is minor given no output schema exists to consult.

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% and the single 'user' parameter already documents '@handle, email or user ID. Defaults to you.' The description's 'when user is given' merely restates that default, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (Slack status) and distinguishes the self case from the other-user case in the same sentence. It does not, however, name the obvious sibling set_status, so the agent must infer the read/write split from the verb alone.

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 'or another user's when user is given' clause implies the condition for targeting someone else, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no pointer to set_status as the mutation alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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