get_channel_format_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool returns JSON-formatted strategies, that omitting channel returns all channels, and it enumerates per-channel differences. It implicitly reads as a safe, non-mutating operation though it does not explicitly state 'no side effects'.

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 sections for overview, channel difference summary, Args, Returns, and Examples. The channel-by-channel breakdown is informative but slightly lengthy; still, every section adds value and the key usage guidance is front-loaded.

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?

The definition fully covers purpose, usage timing, parameter values, return format, and example invocations. An output schema exists to formalize the return structure, so the description need not duplicate it. Nothing essential for an agent to call this tool correctly is missing.

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?

Despite the schema having no description for the channel property (0% coverage), the description fully compensates: it lists all allowed values (feishu, dingtalk, wework, telegram, email, ntfy, bark, slack, generic_webhook), explains the parameter is optional, and specifies the behavior when omitted. This is richer than any schema could provide alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('获取通知渠道的格式化策略指南') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_notification_channels and send_notification. It states it returns Markdown features, format limitations, and best-practice prompts per channel, making its scope unmistakable.

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 this tool '在调用 send_notification 之前' (before calling send_notification) to learn target channel formatting requirements. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion cases, but the primary usage context is clear and actionable.

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