slack_file_info

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/open-world profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: the required OAuth scope, the backing API method, and the notable behavior that every message sharing the file is returned (channel, ts, thread_ts). The external_url caveat for external files is a useful conditional disclosure.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource, scope requirement, and returned shape with no filler; the parenthetical field enumeration is compact and each clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't restate return values, yet it usefully summarizes them; scope and safety are covered via annotation plus the 'files:read' note. The remaining gap is the undocumented workspace parameter, which is required.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It clarifies that file_id is an identifier but not its format (Slack file id vs. permalink), and the required 'workspace' parameter is never mentioned at all — no hint whether it takes a name, subdomain, or id.

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 resource and operation ('File metadata by id'), names the backing API method (files.info), and enumerates returned fields, which distinguishes it cleanly from slack_list_files and slack_download_file. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

'needs files:read' gives a concrete prerequisite and calling it 'by id' implies you must already have a file id (e.g. from slack_list_files). However, it never names an alternative, so the agent must infer that slack_download_file is for content and slack_list_files is for discovery.

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