send_markdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It details specific edge-case handling: 'tables (bullets when links are present), mrkdwn inline formatting, Slack size limits, and multi-part splitting with (n/m) sequence headers.' This goes beyond a generic description and informs the agent of non-obvious transformations and 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a compact list of key behaviors. Every word earns its place, clearly conveying both the primary action and critical edge cases without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (Markdown conversion, Slack limits, multi-part splitting), the description covers essential behaviors and edge cases. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. However, it does not mention failure modes or webhook configuration prerequisites, which would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not describe individual parameters, but the schema already provides accurate descriptions. The Markdown-related behavior (e.g., multi-part splitting) enriches the meaning of the main 'markdown' parameter, but no additional semantics are needed for the others.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Convert Markdown to Slack Block Kit and send via Incoming Webhook.' It identifies the specific verb (convert/send), the resource (Markdown to Slack Block Kit), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Markdown preprocessing, unlike send_payload or send_message.

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 description explicitly states the tool's input format ('Convert Markdown') and lists supported Markdown features, making it evident when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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