get_channel_format_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format (JSON with features, limitations, prompts), the optional parameter behavior (returns all channels if not specified), and provides channel-specific formatting details. It could additionally state that it is read-only with no side effects, but the '获取' (get) verb and return description imply this.

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 with an intro, channel overview list, Args, Returns, and Examples. Each section provides essential information without fluff; the detailed channel list serves as both documentation and reference, earning its length.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, return structure, and includes multiple examples. The output schema exists, so detailed return value documentation is not required, but the description still gives a useful overview.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly documents the 'channel' parameter, including optionality, default behavior (returns all), and enumerates all valid values (feishu, dingtalk, etc.) that the schema lacks. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare input 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's purpose: to retrieve formatting strategy guides for notification channels, listing supported Markdown features, limitations, and best-practice prompts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_notification_channels and send_notification by focusing on format guidance.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool before calling send_notification to understand the target channel's format requirements, providing clear contextual usage. This names the relevant sibling tool and gives a clear when-to-use scenario.

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