获取群成员信息

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the kind of data returned ('昵称、群名片、角色、等级等'), which helps the agent understand the output shape despite the absence of an output schema. It does not mention caching behavior or error conditions, but with annotations present this is a reasonable level of 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, tight sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with parenthetical examples of output fields. No wasted words; completely appropriate for this tool.

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 lookup tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a hint at the return fields. It does not fully specify the return structure or edge cases, but given the annotations and simple schema, it is sufficient for correct invocation in most contexts.

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 each parameter meaning ('成员QQ号', '群号', '是否不使用缓存'). The description maps '指定群内某成员' to group_id and user_id but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. The no_cache parameter is only described in the schema, not expanded here. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('获取' / get), the resource ('指定群内某成员' / a certain member in a specified group), and the content ('详细信息' with examples: nickname, group card, role, level). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_group_member_list (list of members) and get_stranger_info (non-group member info).

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 implies the use case: when you need detailed information of a single member within a specific group. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the context. However, no exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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