slack_lint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that nothing is transmitted and that the result field clean=true signals a pass — genuine context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with the non-sending guarantee and the key output flag front-loaded; nothing is wasted.

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?

Trivial schema, an output schema that documents the return shape, and annotations for safety. The gist of the output flag is called out in the description; only the draft-parameter mapping is unspoken, which is minor here.

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?

A single required param named 'text' with 0% schema description coverage; the description only loosely implies it holds the draft content. The parameter is self-evident from its name, so this is adequate but adds little.

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 ('dry-run the style gate on a draft') and explicitly notes it does not send, which separates it from slack_send_message. It never names a sibling tool, but the intent 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?

'without sending' and 'dry-run' imply the use case is validating a draft before a real send, but no alternative is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is stated.

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