slack_read_channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It still adds real context beyond annotations: the required OAuth scopes per conversation type (channels:history, groups:history, im:history, mpim:history) and users:read for name resolution, which tells an agent what auth failures may mean.

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 compact, front-loaded sentences: capabilities and pagination model first, prerequisites second. No filler, and the return-shape mention is brief rather than restating the output schema at length.

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?

Covers pagination model, auth scopes, and references return fields, with an output schema handling the return shape. However, for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the direction/ordering of messages and the meaning of limit and inclusive are unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 should compensate for all 7 parameters; it only explains cursor and timestamp bounds (oldest/latest). It says nothing about limit semantics, what 'inclusive' toggles, or the workspace/channel_id role, leaving ambiguity for the remaining params.

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 ('Read one history page') and scopes it with cursor/timestamp bounds, so an agent knows this is paginated channel history retrieval. It does not name or contrast with the closest siblings (slack_read_thread, slack_unread, slack_search_messages), so the differentiator is only implicit.

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?

'Read one history page' implies incremental pagination and distinguishes it loosely from bulk export, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus thread reading, unread listing, or message search. 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.