List Uptime Kuma Notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned fields and confirms it lists configured channels, but it does not disclose deeper behavior such as pagination, ordering, or response structure beyond the field names.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a simple list operation with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it states the resource, the return fields, and the intended use. The output schema is absent, but the described return fields fill that gap adequately, and annotations cover safety semantics.

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?

There is only one parameter, response_format, and the schema already describes it fully with an enum and default ('markdown or json'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema description coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List notification channels ... configured in Uptime Kuma.' It also lists what is returned (id/name/type/active), which makes the operation unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling monitor-focused tools.

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?

'Use when wiring monitor to notification' gives a clear, concrete trigger for when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the resource distinction is clear enough from the description.

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