get_friend_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses returned fields and the cache-refresh option, and '获取' implies read-only, but it does not state authentication prerequisites, rate limits, or detailed cache semantics.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, which is good. However, it includes the OneBot 11 API name and a ':param no_cache' line that duplicates the schema, adding minor unnecessary text.

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 simple one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives purpose, key fields, and the cache option. It still lacks sibling differentiation and any detail on return shape, pagination, or size handling.

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 single no_cache parameter is already documented in the schema. The description repeats the same explanation without adding syntax, constraints, or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 (获取) and resource (好友列表), scoped to the currently logged-in QQ, and lists example returned fields. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling get_friends_with_category, which also returns friends.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The phrase '全部好友列表' implies all friends, but an agent gets no explicit instruction on choosing this over get_friends_with_category or get_stranger_info.

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