获取群根目录文件列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond the obvious read operation, such as pagination, auth requirements, or rate limits. Since the annotations carry the burden and the description is consistent, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 that front-loads the action and resource. It has no wasted words and is immediately scannable, earning a top score for efficiency.

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 list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is functionally sufficient but lacks explicit mention of return format or how file_count affects results. It does not offer guidance on distinguishing from sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer. Given the simplicity, 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 both parameters (group_id and file_count) are already documented. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters, such as format constraints or edge cases. This aligns with the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('获取' = get) and resource ('群文件根目录' = group file root directory) with a specific result ('文件和文件夹列表' = list of files and folders). It differentiates from the sibling tool get_group_files_by_folder by specifying the root directory, though it doesn't explicitly name that alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_group_files_by_folder or get_group_file_system_info. The description simply states what it does without any context on selection criteria, prerequisites, or scenarios.

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