wecom_group_chat

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

With no annotations and a minimal description, no behavioral traits are disclosed. The agent cannot infer side effects, permissions needed, or whether actions are destructive. The description adds no value beyond the action list.

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 extremely short but at the expense of utility. It front-loads the purpose vaguely but omits all critical details, making it insufficiently informative despite its brevity.

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?

Even with an output schema, the description fails to explain outputs or how actions differ. Sibling tools cover related WeCom functions, but this description gives no context for when to use group chat actions compared to others like wecom_msg_template or wecom_tag.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only lists action names without parameter details. The 'params' field is vaguely defined as any object or null, and no enums or constraints are hinted, leaving the agent unable to format valid inputs.

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 '客户群 — actions: list / get / opengid_to_chatid' identifies the tool as related to WeCom group chats and lists three actions, giving a basic sense of purpose. However, it does not explain what each action does, making it vague and unable to distinguish from siblings like wecom_customer.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other WeCom tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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