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 behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the return content (per-channel format features, limitations, and prompt suggestions) and implies this is a read-only operation. It does not mention potential error cases or authentication requirements, but for a non-mutating query that's a minor gap. The description is far more transparent than typical tools.

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 lengthy but well-structured: a clear intro stating its purpose and timing, a bulleted list of channel-specific features, then formal Args/Returns/Examples sections. The front-loaded purpose and examples make it easy to parse. While it could trim some redundancy in the channel list, the structure earns its length by covering all necessary detail without fluff.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail the JSON structure, but it explains the conceptual content (supported features, restrictions, formatting prompts). It covers the primary use case, parameter behavior, and gives examples. Missing edge-case handling (e.g., invalid channel values) is not critical for a query tool like this, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it confidently.

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 only defines 'channel' as a string or null with no description or enum. The description fully compensates by documenting that the parameter is optional, enumerating the exact valid channel IDs (feishu, dingtalk, wework, telegram, email, ntfy, bark, slack, generic_webhook), and providing usage examples. This is exemplary coverage for a parameter with zero schema documentation.

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 exactly what the tool does: retrieves formatting strategy guides for notification channels, with a detailed breakdown of supported Markdown features per channel. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like send_notification and get_notification_channels by focusing on formatting guidance rather than sending or listing channels.

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 before calling send_notification to understand the target channel's formatting requirements. It also explains that the channel parameter is optional and that omitting it returns all strategies. While it doesn't list alternatives or negative usage scenarios, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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