get_receivers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, the description only states the operation without mentioning side effects, read-only nature, or any resource constraints. It does not reveal whether this call is safe or has any impact on the system.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action 'Get list of all receivers'.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple list retrieval. However, it could be more complete by specifying the return format (e.g., array of strings) or including a note about the data source. As is, it is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds meaning by explaining that receivers are 'names of notification integrations', which clarifies what the returned list represents. This provides value beyond the empty schema.

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 gets a list of all receivers, further specifying they are names of notification integrations. The verb 'Get' and resource 'list of all receivers' is specific and unambiguous. Compared to sibling tools like get_alerts or get_silences, this tool is uniquely about receivers, so differentiation is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify scenarios where receivers are needed, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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