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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns formatting strategies for notification channels, supports an optional parameter to filter by channel, and provides detailed examples of channel-specific format differences. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers the core operational behavior well.

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-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, immediately provides usage context, then details channel differences in a clear bulleted format, followed by parameter and return explanations with concrete examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (single optional parameter), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, parameter behavior, return format, and provides practical examples. The output schema will handle return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does this excellently: it explains that the 'channel' parameter is optional, specifies what happens when omitted (returns all channel strategies), lists all possible values with clear examples, and provides usage examples. This adds comprehensive meaning beyond the basic schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: '获取通知渠道的格式化策略指南' (Get notification channel formatting policy guide). It specifies the exact resource (notification channels) and action (get formatting strategies), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_notification or get_notification_channels by focusing on format requirements rather than sending messages 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: '在调用 send_notification 之前使用此工具' (Use this tool before calling send_notification). It clearly positions this as a preparatory step for understanding format requirements, distinguishing it from the actual notification-sending sibling tool.

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