获取群文件夹文件

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the concrete return content (both files and subfolders), but does not discuss pagination, the effect of file_count, or error cases. This is acceptable for a simple read-only listing but not a strong behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that expresses the full purpose without filler. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the operation.

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 read-only listing with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the essentials. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning how file_count behaves or that the result is only for a specific folder, but nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about what values to pass for group_id, folder_id, or file_count, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear action ('获取') and resource: files and subfolders under a specified group folder, which is more specific than the title. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling such as get_group_root_files, though the '指定文件夹' scope hints at the difference.

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 only restates the operation; it gives no context about when to choose this tool over get_group_root_files, get_group_file_url, or other file-system tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria are provided.

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