获取群系统消息

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description adds useful context about the message categories included (group join requests/invitations). However, it does not reveal additional behaviors such as whether the returned messages are marked as read, limited by count, or ordered chronologically.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and subject without filler or redundancy. Every word earns 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 one optional parameter and strong annotations, this is nearly complete: the resource is identified and count is optional. Minor gaps remain around count semantics/default behavior and the return shape, but neither prevents a competent agent from invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'count' is documented as '获取数量'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so a 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 states a clear action ('获取') and a specific resource: group system notifications, with concrete examples (入群申请/邀请) that narrow the scope. It is coherent with the name and title but does not explicitly contrast itself with the similar sibling get_group_notice_list, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only defines what it does, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and examples.

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