wecom_get_group_info

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. However, it only describes the basic functionality without disclosing behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, potential errors, or side effects.

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 sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and minimal description, the tool lacks context about behavior and limitations. It is adequate for a straightforward tool but could be improved by adding usage hints or prerequisites.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'roomid' and 'group_type'. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the parameter purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient clarity.

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 tool retrieves group chat details for both external and internal groups. It uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('群聊详情'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like wecom_list_external_groups (which lists groups) or wecom_pull_messages (which retrieves messages).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of when to use it, when not to, or any prerequisites.

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