get_notification_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it reveals that it scans config.yaml and .env, supports a fixed set of 9 channels, and returns a JSON status report including each channel's configured state and source. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe potential side effects, but the '检测' language strongly implies a non-mutating inspection, which is generally transparent for a getter.

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-organized: a purpose statement, a detection detail line, a supported-channels list, a return-format section, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each section adds value without redundancy. It is slightly verbose for such a simple tool, but the structure earns its place.

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 (no parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the source of configuration, the list of channels, the return format, and gives an example invocation. Minor omissions like error behavior or permissions are not critical for an agent to call it correctly.

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% (since properties is empty). The description's example call 'get_notification_channels()' confirms the no-argument signature, but the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the empty schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 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 opens with a clear verb '获取' and a specific resource '通知渠道及其状态', and adds detail about configuration sources and the 9 supported channels. This makes the purpose distinct from siblings like send_notification or get_channel_format_guide, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate.

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 context about when this tool is relevant (checking notification channel configuration from config.yaml and .env) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied through the stated behavior, but no direct routing is provided.

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