send_notification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavior: automatic format adaptation per channel with specific transformations (e.g., Telegram converts to HTML, Slack to mrkdwn), default behavior of sending to all configured channels, and return format as JSON with per-channel status. It doesn't mention error handling or idempotency, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 organized with clear sections: purpose, channel-specific format details, a tip, Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence adds value—the channel list is informative, and the examples illustrate usage. It's slightly long but well structured.

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 complexity of multi-channel notification with per-channel format adaptation, the description is remarkably complete. It covers parameters, behaviors, defaults, return format, and provides a tip for best practices. It also references a sibling tool (get_channel_format_guide) for deeper guidance, filling any gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides a dedicated Args section explaining message (required, markdown), title (default), and channels (optional list with allowed values). This adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults. It also includes examples showing usage patterns.

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 '向已配置的通知渠道发送消息' (send messages to configured notification channels), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_channel_format_guide and get_notification_channels, which are about querying formatting guidance and channel configurations, not sending.

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?

It provides context by suggesting '发送前可调用 get_channel_format_guide 获取目标渠道的详细格式化策略' (call get_channel_format_guide before sending for detailed formatting strategy). This implies when to use this tool (to send) and points to an alternative for formatting guidance. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, but the context is clear.

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