get_channel_format_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly conveys a read-only, informational operation ('获取', '返回'), describes the JSON return format, and enumerates the detailed behavior across channels. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or discuss side effects, but the non-mutating nature is strongly implied.

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 highly structured and information-dense. It front-loads the purpose, then organizes channel differences, arguments, return type, and examples into clearly labeled sections. Every sentence contributes actionable information, and the per-channel breakdown is directly useful for the tool's purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description still supplies essential context: optional behavior, valid channel IDs, return format, and usage examples. Given the tool's simple single-parameter interface, nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It defines the channel parameter, lists all valid values (feishu, dingtalk, wework, telegram, email, ntfy, bark, slack, generic_webhook), explains that omitting it returns all channel policies, and gives concrete usage examples. This exceeds what the minimal schema alone would provide.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: '获取通知渠道的格式化策略指南' (get notification channel formatting policy guide), and explicitly states it returns Markdown features, formatting restrictions, and best-practice prompt suggestions per channel. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like send_notification and get_notification_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 explicitly says to use this tool before calling send_notification to understand the target channel's format requirements. It provides clear context for when it is relevant, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives beyond its relationship to send_notification.

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