slack_find_channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new context: it excludes archived conversations, states which OAuth scopes are needed per type (including users:read for DM name resolution), and explains that 'refresh' reloads a cache — a non-obvious side effect. No return-format detail, but that is minor given the output schema.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The telegraphic style ('Needs channels:read/groups:read/...') is efficient but borders on cryptic for the permission clause.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and permission/caching behavior is covered well. However, for a name-lookup tool with zero schema parameter descriptions, the absence of any statement about how 'query' is matched (substring, prefix, fuzzy) or what 'limit' controls leaves a real gap an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 compensate. It usefully enumerates the valid 'types' values and the comma-separated format (no enums exist in the schema) and explains 'refresh' as a cache reload, but says nothing about 'query' matching semantics, 'workspace', or 'limit', leaving three of five parameters undocumented.

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 and resource ('Find non-archived conversations by name') with a scope qualifier (non-archived) and enumerates the conversation types it covers. An agent can tell this apart from slack_channel_info or slack_search, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('by name', non-archived) but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over slack_channel_info, slack_search, or slack_list_workspaces. The type/permission notes hint at configuration choices rather than routing decisions.

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