get_notification_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it reads from specific configuration files (config.yaml and .env), lists the 9 supported notification channels, and describes the JSON return format with channel status and configuration source. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then details configuration sources and supported channels, followed by return format and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, configuration sources, supported channels, and return format. However, it could benefit from more explicit usage context or error handling details, though the output schema likely handles return values.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, maintaining focus on the tool's behavior and output. This aligns with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('获取' - get/retrieve) and resources ('所有已配置的通知渠道及其状态' - all configured notification channels and their status). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on notification channels specifically, unlike other tools that handle news, data analysis, or 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 implies usage by mentioning it detects configurations in config.yaml and .env files, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_config' or 'get_system_status'. No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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