获取群文件系统信息

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds no new behavioral details beyond the purpose, such as whether the reported usage is live, estimated, or requires special permissions; it does not contradict the 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 that states exactly what the tool returns with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be retrieved: file space size and usage. It does not specify the return format/units, but the tool's complexity is low and annotations cover safety.

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 single parameter group_id is already fully described in the schema with type and '群号'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline for full 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 a specific verb-resource pair: '获取群文件空间大小与使用情况' (get group file space size and usage). This distinguishes it from sibling file tools like get_group_root_files, get_group_files_by_folder, and get_group_file_url, which concern file listing or URLs rather than capacity/usage.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need the group file system's space usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is specific enough that no sibling tool covers the same purpose, so no exclusions are necessary.

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