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. It discloses that it reads from config.yaml and .env and returns JSON status, giving some behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error handling when configuration is missing, leaving some ambiguity.

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 structured with a main description, a returns section, and an example. It includes a useful list of the 9 supported channels, which adds value without excessive verbosity. Slightly longer than necessary due to the channel enumeration, but remains focused and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, zero parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, configuration sources, and supported channels. It does not need to explain return formats since the output schema exists. The only missing context is explicit error behavior, but it is not critical for a read-only getter.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes the input. The description adds context about the output and sources, but for no-parameter tools, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 function: retrieving all configured notification channels and their status. It specifies the scope (9 channels) and the data sources (config.yaml and .env), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_config or get_system_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 description provides clear context by indicating it detects channels from specific configuration files and lists supported channels. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when checking configuration before sending notifications. No exclusions are mentioned.

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