get_group_file_system_info

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 the key behavioral trait of a read-only info query by naming the returned metrics (total space, used space, file count limit), but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or rate limits.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the trailing ':param group_id: 群号' is a docstring artifact that duplicates the schema, and the parenthetical '(NapCat OneBot 11: get_group_file_system_info)' largely restates the tool name.

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-only info tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the call returns and requires nothing further to invoke correctly. Only a note on permissions or error cases would add value.

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% — group_id is already documented as '群号' in the schema. The description merely repeats this in the ':param group_id: 群号' line, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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: retrieving the QQ group file system's space usage, and enumerates what that includes (total space, used space, file count limit). This clearly separates it from sibling listing tools like get_group_root_files, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_group_root_files or get_group_files_by_folder. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the described return content.

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