call_napcat_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a raw escape hatch bypassing the safe named wrappers and documents the timeout default, but it never warns that the same call can trigger destructive actions (kick, ban, send), nor describes error behavior or how failures surface for unknown actions.

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-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then the routing rule, then parameter notes. Every sentence earns its place and the ordering matches how an agent reads a definition.

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 generic passthrough with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers purpose, when-to-use, and parameters well. The one gap is that it does not note that return shapes vary by action, which an agent would need to know when composing follow-up calls.

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 the schema already documents action, params, and timeout. The description's parameter notes largely restate the schema fields, adding example action names but no new semantics about the params dictionary's per-action shape. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: a universal low-level passthrough that directly calls any OneBot 11 standard or extended Action supported by NapCatQQ, covering 144+ functions. It explicitly carves out its niche relative to the named siblings, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the condition that selects this tool — when high-level named tools do not cover a specific rare interface — and gives concrete examples (group album, group sign-in, fetch_ptt_text, send_group_ai_record, clean_cache). This implies the inverse rule (prefer named tools otherwise), which is strong routing guidance.

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