send_notification

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 reveals a key behavior: automatic format adaptation per channel, with detailed per-channel transformations. It also states the return type (JSON with per-channel status). However, it omits important behavioral aspects like error handling for invalid channels, rate limits, or whether sending is asynchronous. This is a moderate disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 a clear intro, a bulleted per-channel format list, a tip, and examples. The bullet list is detailed but directly relevant—it helps the agent generate appropriate content. It is longer than necessary but not bloated; every section serves a purpose.

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 no annotations and moderate complexity (3 parameters, multiple channels), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and examples. It also points to a sibling tool for deeper formatting details. Missing error handling and failure semantics, but the provided information is sufficient for typical use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter: message (markdown content, required), title (default 'TrendRadar 通知'), and channels (list of valid channel names, default null sends to all). This goes beyond the schema by adding usage context and default behavior. It could be slightly richer (e.g., length limits), but it is solid.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: '向已配置的通知渠道发送消息' (send messages to configured notification channels). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_channel_format_guide and get_notification_channels by explicitly focusing on the sending action. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 includes a direct tip: '发送前可调用 get_channel_format_guide 获取目标渠道的详细格式化策略' which tells the agent when to use an alternative tool. It also clarifies the default behavior when channels is not specified ('不指定则发送到所有已配置渠道'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for listing channels), but the sibling distinction is implicit.

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