get_notification_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool inspects config.yaml and .env, scans 9 specific channels, and returns JSON with per-channel configured status and source. It does not discuss side effects, auth, or failure modes, but for a read-only status tool this is adequate and non-misleading.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, supporting details about config sources and channel list, and a return-format section. It is concise and front-loaded; the example call is minor but not 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the config sources, lists channels, and states the JSON response shape. It does not mention all potential edge cases, but none are critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The baseline of 4 applies here; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none is needed.

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 retrieves all configured notification channels and their status, with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It lists the supported channels and distinguishes itself from RSS/config sibling tools by focusing on notification channels.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need the configuration state of notification channels from config.yaml and .env. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource is scoped enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

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