get_notification_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool reads config.yaml and .env, checks 9 notification channels, and returns JSON with per-channel configured status and source. This reveals the read-only nature and the underlying data sources, though it does not address error cases or permission requirements.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by config sources, supported channels, return format, and an example. Each section is useful, though the example is somewhat redundant for a tool with no parameters. Overall it is concise and easy to scan.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned, what configuration sources are checked, and which channels are covered. It does not specify behavior when config files are missing or invalid, but those are edge cases an agent can reasonably infer. The description provides enough context 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 input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because the schema already provides all necessary information. The example call confirms there are no arguments, so the description adds no parameter-related value beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 '获取' and a clear resource '所有已配置的通知渠道及其状态', precisely stating what the tool does. It lists the 9 supported channels and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_notification and get_channel_format_guide, which focus on sending or formatting rather than configuration status.

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 intended use is implied: when an agent needs to know which notification channels are configured and their status. However, the description never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or provide routing guidance relative to the many sibling tools. The zero-parameter signature makes the use case fairly obvious, but explicit differentiation is missing.

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