get_notification_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reads configuration from files (config.yaml and .env), returns JSON with channel status and configuration sources, and lists all supported channels. It is a pure read operation with no destructive side effects.

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 concise overall, but the list of channels is somewhat redundant and could be shortened. It is well-structured with a title sentence, details, and return format.

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 zero parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description provides sufficient detail: it explains what is returned (JSON with channel status and source) and how the configuration is detected. No critical information is missing.

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 has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output format and the configuration sources, which is helpful for understanding what the tool returns.

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 it retrieves all configured notification channels and their status. It lists 9 specific channels and mentions the configuration sources (config.yaml and .env), distinguishing 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 explains what the tool does and its configuration sources, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer usage, but lacks explicit directives.

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