get_notification_channels

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 does disclose that the tool reads config.yaml and .env and returns a JSON status with configuration source, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, makes no external calls, or sends no notifications, which would be valuable given the sibling send_notification.

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 purpose and key details are front-loaded, with the Returns and Examples sections adding clarity without excessive verbosity. Listing nine channels is necessary context, and the structure is easy to scan. Minor redundancy exists because the return format is already captured by the output schema, but it does not hurt usability.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns, which config files are inspected, the list of supported channels, and a usage example. Since the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, this is nearly complete. The main missing element is explicit guidance about how this tool relates to sibling notification tools.

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 zero properties and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The description includes an example invocation `get_notification_channels()` that confirms no arguments are required, satisfying the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 and resource: “获取所有已配置的通知渠道及其状态” (get all configured notification channels and their status). It further clarifies scope by listing 9 supported channels and the config sources checked. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_channel_format_guide, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a usage context by mentioning config.yaml and .env detection, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_notification or get_channel_format_guide. There are no explicit exclusions or conditions that would help an agent decide between tools.

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