slack_get_channel_history

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions chronological order, inclusion of bot/automation messages, and pagination but does not detail rate limits, empty results handling, or response format. Minor gap but generally transparent.

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 concise at four sentences, uses clear bullets for usage guidelines, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity, no annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and parameter roles. It is complete for effective agent decision-making.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema for parameters; the channel_id description repeats tool-level info. No enhancement needed but also no extra value provided.

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 'Get messages from a channel in chronological order,' providing a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool slack_search_messages by specifying when to use each, making the 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 includes explicit 'Use this when' conditions (three specific scenarios) and a 'Do NOT use if' clause that directs the agent to the alternative tool slack_search_messages. This provides clear guidance on when to select this tool over siblings.

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