get_group_at_all_remain

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. '查询' implies a read-only operation and '今日剩余' hints at a daily-reset quota, but the description never explicitly confirms it is side-effect-free nor describes the return format. For a simple read this is adequate but not rich.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the trailing ':param group_id: 群号' docstring fragment is redundant with the schema and adds no value, making the structure slightly wasteful.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but does not explain the shape of the return value (e.g., count fields or reset behavior), leaving a modest gap.

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 group_id fully documented as 群号. The description's ':param group_id: 群号' merely repeats the schema without adding format, range, or example detail, so 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?

The description states a specific verb (查询/query) and a precise resource: the remaining @全体成员 count for a given group today. This is clearly distinguishable from other read tools like get_group_shut_list or get_group_info. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from siblings, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description says what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent is left to infer that this is a diagnostic/read call with no explicit routing context.

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