scan_slack

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It omits whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, rate limits, or authentication specifics beyond the api_key parameter. Only the parameter 'show_matched_secret_on_logs' hints at behavior, but the description does not elaborate.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's core function.

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 complexity of 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, the scanning process, or the implications of parameters like report_format or ai_analysis. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify the enum values for report_format, nor provide context for ai_analysis or n0s1_api_key. It merely restates the tool's purpose.

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 verb 'scan', the resource 'Slack channels', and the objective 'for leaked secrets'. This strongly differentiates it from sibling tools like scan_github, scan_confluence, etc., making its purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites beyond the required api_key, and no exclusions. It lacks any context for the agent to choose this over other scan tools, falling into 'no guidance' territory.

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