get_notification_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It identifies the data sources (config.yaml and .env), the supported channels, and the return value shape (JSON with configured status and source). It does not declare side effects or read-only behavior, but the inspection semantics are reasonably evident.

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 appropriately compact and structured, covering purpose, sources, supported channels, return format, and an example. The example line is nearly redundant for a zero-parameter call, but it does not meaningfully detract from the precision.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter inspection tool with an output schema present. The description fully explains what is checked, where the configuration comes from, what the response contains, and the scope of channels. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to enrich. The zero-parameter case is given the baseline score of 4, and the description still clarifies the output format and scope.

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 states a clear action and resource: '获取所有已配置的通知渠道及其状态' (get all configured notification channels and their status). It further distinguishes itself by enumerating the 9 supported channels and the return type, which separates it from siblings like send_notification and get_channel_format_guide.

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 useful context by explaining that it checks config.yaml and .env environment variables, so users understand when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case as a configuration-status inspection tool is clearly implied.

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