List notification channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and scope, with no mention of whether this is read-only, pagination behavior, return format, or other important traits. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and earns every word.

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 tool is simple (no parameters), but with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the purpose adequately but omits details about the return structure or any behavioral caveats, making it complete enough for basic use but not fully rich.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully defines parameter semantics (baseline 4). The description adds project context but does not need to explain parameters further.

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 verb (list), resource (notification channels), and scope (all in the project), with examples of channel types. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_checks and list_badges, which target different resource types.

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 usage is implied by the description and name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to others. However, since no sibling tool performs a similar function, the lack of alternatives makes the implied usage sufficient.

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