获取群荣誉

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds only examples of honor types, not deeper behavioral context like response structure or permissions, but it does not contradict 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, compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the core purpose immediately and efficiently, earning its place.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives the basic purpose but does not explain what the returned honor information looks like. A brief note about the return structure would improve completeness, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can likely infer it.

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 input schema fully describes both group_id and type, including an enum, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds a slight semantic hint by giving Chinese examples of honor types, but this mostly restates what the enum already implies. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves group honor information ('获取群荣誉信息') and gives concrete examples of honor types (龙王, 群聊之火). It is specific about the resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_group_* tools, relying on the unique resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many other group-related getters (e.g., get_group_info, get_group_member_info). The intended use is only implied by the tool name and description; there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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