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 does disclose that it targets the currently logged-in account and that no_cache forces a cache refresh, but it says nothing about permissions, response format, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 core purpose, but the trailing ":param no_cache:" docstring fragment is a stylistic artifact that simply repeats the schema text, slightly diluting the structure.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully compensates by naming the fields returned (user_id, nickname, remark) and the target account scope. Missing only return-format/pagination details, which are minor for a simple list call.

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% and the single no_cache parameter is documented identically in the schema and the description, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource: it fetches the complete friend list of the currently logged-in QQ account, and it enumerates returned fields (user_id, nickname, remark). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_friends_with_category, so it stops short of a 5.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives, even though the sibling get_friends_with_category returns a similar resource and would need disambiguation. The word "全部" (all) only weakly implies a contrast.

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