get_channel_format_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the JSON return format containing features, limitations, and formatting prompts, and clarifies the optional channel parameter behavior (omitting returns all strategies). However, it doesn't detail the exact JSON structure or confirm the operation is read-only, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 longer than typical but every section earns its place: purpose, usage timing, per-channel format differences, Args, Returns, and Examples. The channel-specific feature list is essential content for this tool's value, not padding. It's front-loaded with purpose and flows logically, though slightly verbose.

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 single-optional-parameter lookup tool, the description is thoroughly complete: it explains what to do with results (format message content before send_notification), documents all channel values with their format differences, provides a Returns section describing output, and includes two concrete examples. Comprehensive for the tool's simplicity.

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 fully compensates by documenting the channel parameter: meaning (channel ID), optionality, default behavior (returns all channels when omitted), and all nine valid enum values (feishu, dingtalk, wework, telegram, email, ntfy, bark, slack, generic_webhook). This exceeds schema-provided information.

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 channel-specific formatting strategies (Markdown features, limitations, and formatting prompts). It identifies a specific resource (notification channel format guides) with a precise verb, and effectively differentiates itself from sibling tools, none of which deal with formatting.

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 instructs to use the tool before send_notification to understand target channel formatting requirements, establishing clear usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, though the tool's unique purpose within the sibling set makes exclusions largely unnecessary.

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