get_notification_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool reads configuration from config.yaml and .env, supports a specific list of 9 channels, and returns JSON status including configuration source. While it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, the non-destructive nature is clear from the wording, and it provides useful context about configuration sources.

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 well-structured: a primary sentence, a supporting detail sentence, a Returns section, and an Example. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant fluff. The list of channels is informative and not excessive for a tool meant to enumerate channels.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, where it reads configuration from, which channels are covered, and provides an example. There are no missing prerequisites or ambiguous edge cases, and it fits well alongside sibling 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty object). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not detract from this.

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 '获取' (get) and the resource '所有已配置的通知渠道及其状态' (all configured notification channels and their status), establishing a specific, distinct purpose. It stands out from sibling tools like get_system_status or send_notification by focusing solely on channel configuration and status.

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 its usage through the nature of the operation (checking configured channels), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_current_config or send_notification. It provides technical context (reads config.yaml and .env) but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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