get_group_files_by_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral. It implies a read-only listing operation but never states that it is non-mutating, whether it requires bot/group permissions, how results are paginated, or what happens for an invalid folder_id.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence plus two terse param notes, with no wasted prose. It is efficient, though the param lines simply duplicate the schema.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are covered. However, it omits how folder_id is obtained and gives no hint of the returned list structure, which a description could reasonably supply in the absence of an output schema.

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%; both group_id and folder_id are documented in the schema, and the description merely repeats '群号' and '文件夹 ID'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or sourcing detail.

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 and resource: retrieve the list of files and subfolders inside a specified folder of a QQ group. The '指定文件夹' scoping implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_group_root_files, which handles root-level listing. It is clear but never explicitly names the sibling it differs from.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_group_root_files or get_group_file_url. An agent must infer from the name alone that a folder_id from a parent listing call is required first. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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