send_notification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden — and it meets it well. It reveals the side-effecting nature (sends to all configured channels by default), the auto-adaptation of markdown per channel with exact format mappings (e.g., Telegram HTML conversion, Slack mrkdwn), default title, and JSON return shape. The per-channel format table is substantial behavioral context an agent would otherwise not know.

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 long but every section earns its place for a nine-channel tool: the channel-specific format table is non-obvious and essential, args/returns/examples follow in a clean, scannable structure. It's front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into channel details. Slightly verbose in the per-channel breakdown but justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Coverage is strong for a multi-channel notification tool: purpose, per-channel format behavior, all parameters with enums, default behaviors, and return result shape are all present. An output schema exists so deep return-field documentation is unnecessary. Minor gaps remain — per-channel failure handling and rate-limit behavior — but these are not blocking 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate — and it does. The Args section defines all three parameters with meaning: message is markdown content, title has a stated default, and channels lists every valid value (feishu, dingtalk, wework, telegram, email, ntfy, bark, slack, generic_webhook) which the schema itself lacks as an enum. This is exemplary compensation for a schema with zero descriptions.

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+resource ('向已配置的通知渠道发送消息' — send messages to configured notification channels), and the rest of the content enumerates per-channel behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from the data-fetching siblings (search_rss, get_latest_news, analyze_topic_trend) which are read-oriented, while this is the only send-action tool in the set.

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 tip explicitly directs the agent to call get_channel_format_guide before sending to produce optimal formatting — concrete guidance on tool orchestration. It's clear this tool is for sending (not for configuring channels, which get_notification_channels covers), though it doesn't state explicit when-not-to-use conditions for edge cases like unconfigured channels.

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