get_group_at_all_remain

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It conveys that this is a read query with a 'today' temporal scope, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or the shape of the returned count.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence. The trailing ':param group_id: 群号' is redundant docstring residue but costs little.

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 one-parameter read tool this covers the intent adequately, but with no output schema the description should explain the return value (e.g. a numeric count) and it does not, 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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents group_id fully. The ':param group_id: 群号' line merely repeats the schema and adds no new meaning, matching the baseline of 3.

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 (查询) and a precise resource (remaining @全体成员 count for a given group today), so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with one, but no sibling overlaps this resource, keeping it clearly distinguishable.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. For a single-purpose read query the usage is largely implied, which lands at minimum-viable rather than misleading.

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