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 of transparency. It clearly states what the tool returns (supported Markdown features, format restrictions, and formatting prompts) and describes the optional channel behavior ('不指定返回所有渠道策略'). Examples illustrate expected outputs. However, it does not disclose handling of invalid channel IDs or potential errors, which is a minor gap.

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 an intro, a bullet list of channel differences, Args/Returns sections, and examples. It front-loads the main purpose. However, the channel differences bullet list is quite verbose and repeats information the tool itself will return; while useful for deciding whether to call the tool, it could be trimmed to the most essential contrasts without losing value.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema present (as indicated by 'has_output_schema: true'). The description provides a clear return type ('JSON格式的渠道格式化策略'), mentions the optional channel behavior, and includes two examples. This is comprehensive for the tool's complexity and leaves no major gaps for the agent.

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 input schema provides only a 'channel' parameter with anyOf string/null and no description. The tool description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's meaning ('指定渠道 ID', optional), default behavior ('不指定返回所有渠道策略'), and valid enum values (feishu, dingtalk, wework, telegram, email, ntfy, bark, slack, generic_webhook). This rich semantic addition is essential for correct usage.

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's purpose: '获取通知渠道的格式化策略指南' (get notification channel formatting guide). It explicitly names the resource (channel formatting strategies) and the verb (get), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_notification and get_notification_channels by focusing on formatting details. The bullet list of channel-specific features further clarifies its scope.

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 '在调用 send_notification 之前使用此工具' (use this tool before calling send_notification), providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also explains the optional channel parameter and the behavior when omitted. Though it doesn't mention alternatives by name, the primary alternative (send_notification) is directly referenced, giving strong contextual guidance.

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