获取群公告

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 the NapCat-specific implementation note, which could signal environment requirements, but does not describe return format, pagination, or any side effects beyond what annotations already convey. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds substantial behavioral context.

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 front-loads the purpose and includes a parenthetical note about the NapCat-specific action. It is efficient and wastes no words, though it could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the basic action, but it omits any details about the expected return format, potential errors, or prerequisites beyond the NapCat environment. Given its simplicity and annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 group_id as '群号' (group number). The description adds no additional meaning or constraints for the parameter, staying at the baseline 3 as the schema carries the full burden.

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 verb '获取' (get) and the resource '指定群的公告列表' (announcement list of the specified group), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_essence_msg_list or send_group_notice, though the NapCat-specific note offers some distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does and mentions it is NapCat-specific, but does not explain when an agent should choose it over other group-related tools or any exclusions.

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