qq_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds behavioral context by specifying 'only allowlisted' and 'visible', indicating filtering behavior. It doesn't describe side effects (none expected) or authentication, but for a read-only list tool this is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and clearly states the scope. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 with two enum parameters and an output schema (present but not shown). The description covers the core behavior—listing allowlisted/visible targets. It doesn't mention return format or error cases, but the output schema likely covers that. For a listing tool with such clear enums, this is adequate. A 5 would require more nuance, but a 4 is appropriate.

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 carries the burden. It mentions 'official' and 'personal' implicitly via 'official bot' and 'NapCat', and 'group' and 'user' via 'friends/groups'. However, it doesn't explicitly map the parameters or explain their meaning beyond the enum names. The enums themselves are self-explanatory (kind: group/user, provider: official/personal), but the description could have linked them more directly. It adds partial value but doesn't fully compensate for zero schema coverage.

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 'List' and the resource: 'allowlisted official bot open IDs or visible NapCat friends/groups'. This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like qq_send (sending) or qq_status (status). The enums for provider and kind map directly to the two categories, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context: when you need to know available targets (allowlisted IDs or visible friends/groups). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names (qq_status, qq_context, qq_send, qq_forget) make it clear this is the listing tool. The context is clear enough without explicit when-not guidance.

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