wechat_get_group_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation through '获取' but does not describe authentication requirements, error behavior, rate limits, or pagination/scrolling behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the behavioral profile remains largely undisclosed.

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 tool's purpose without unnecessary words. For a simple retrieval tool, this is appropriately sized and structurally efficient.

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?

The tool is simple, parameters are fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations and no usage or behavioral context, the description is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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 are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 specific verb+resource: retrieving the member nickname list for a specified group chat. This clearly distinguishes the tool from general contact or chat-history siblings by focusing on group members, but it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling tool. Thus it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 only states what the tool does; it gives no guidance about when to use it versus alternatives such as wechat_get_contacts or wechat_get_chat_history. There is a weak implied use case when group member nicknames are needed, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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