获取群信息

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with those. The description adds the expected return fields (group name, member count, owner, announcement), but it does not disclose additional behavior such as error handling or permission requirements. No contradiction exists.

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 action and then gives concrete examples of the returned information. It contains no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with complete schema coverage and safety annotations, this description gives enough orientation to invoke it correctly. It omits only optional details like exact return formatting or error behavior, which are not essential at this complexity.

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 documents group_id as 群号, so the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. The phrase 指定群 simply reinforces that group_id identifies the target group, so the baseline score 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 verb (获取) and resource (指定群的详细信息) and lists concrete fields such as 群名、人数、群主、公告等, so an agent can tell it is a per-group detail fetch rather than a list operation. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it falls just short of a top score.

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 choose this tool over siblings like get_group_list or get_group_member_info. The only usage cue is the phrase 指定群, which implies a single-group lookup but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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