call_napcat_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a low-level passthrough with a default 30s timeout, but it does not state that safety and side effects depend entirely on the chosen action, nor does it describe auth requirements or error behavior for invalid actions. For a generic, potentially mutating passthrough, this is a moderate gap.

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?

Front-loaded: the identity of the tool comes first, then the when-to-use rule with examples. The trailing :param block duplicates the schema and is slightly redundant, but the overall size is appropriate and every core sentence 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?

No output schema exists, but for a passthrough the return shape is action-dependent and arguably needn't be enumerated. The description covers role, usage condition, and parameters adequately; the main omission is how to discover valid action names, which a sibling provides.

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 action, params, and timeout are already documented. The description's :param lines largely restate the schema, and its examples overlap with the schema's examples, so baseline 3 applies — it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a 'universal low-level passthrough' that directly invokes any OneBot 11 standard or extended Action supported by NapCatQQ, covering 144+ features. It explicitly carves out its niche relative to the named siblings — the fallback for obscure actions those tools don't cover — so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit condition for use: when high-level named tools do not cover a specific obscure interface, with concrete examples (group album, group sign-in, fetch_ptt_text, send_group_ai_record, clean_cache). It does not name a discovery sibling such as list_supported_napcat_actions for finding valid action names, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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