获取好友列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of output context by mentioning friend QQ numbers and nicknames. It does not disclose traits like pagination, list order, or absence behavior, but this is a low-risk read-only operation, so the missing detail is not critical.

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 short sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then appends only the most useful clarifying detail. There is no filler, repetition, or tangential information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and the expected information returned. The absence of an output schema and the lack of any mention of list limits or ordering are minor gaps, but they do not prevent correct invocation.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain at the parameter level. The schema is already complete with an empty properties object, and the description correctly focuses on the returned friend-list fields instead.

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 states a specific verb and resource: “获取机器人好友列表” (get robot friend list), and adds concrete output content (QQ号、昵称等). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_group_member_list or get_stranger_info, so there is no ambiguity about what it 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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name sibling tools, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing it; an agent can only infer usage from the tool's name and resource. This is a clear gap, especially in a large sibling list with many list/query operations.

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