get_notification_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral information. It does disclose that it reads configuration from specific files and returns a JSON with configuration source, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention error conditions, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise, well-structured with sections for summary, supported channels, return format, and an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary filler.

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 (0 params) and has an output schema; the description still explains the return format and the sources it checks. It also lists the 9 supported channels, making it complete for its complexity.

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 description coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, the baseline is 4; the description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 uses the specific verb '获取' (get) and resource '已配置的通知渠道及其状态' (configured notification channels and their status), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_notification and get_channel_format_guide by focusing on retrieval of channel 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 clearly implies the tool is for checking which notification channels are configured by detecting config.yaml and .env, giving context for use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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