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 behavioral burden. It conveys only that this is a list operation; it says nothing about pagination, result caps, whether the folder_id must come from a prior call, or permission requirements for the group.

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 in a single compact sentence. The trailing ':param' lines are redundant with the schema but cost little, so the overall definition stays short and scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations and a crowded sibling namespace (get_group_root_files, get_group_file_url, delete_group_folder) the description leaves the agent without enough to route correctly or anticipate results.

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 both parameters are documented there, so the ':param' lines in the description merely restate '群号' and '文件夹 ID' without adding format, source, or constraint details. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 and resource: retrieve the list of files and subfolders inside a designated folder of a QQ group. The phrase '指定文件夹内' (inside the specified folder) implicitly distinguishes it from get_group_root_files, but it never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the root-vs-folder distinction.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. Nothing tells an agent when to pick this over get_group_root_files or get_group_file_system_info, which are the obvious alternatives in the sibling list.

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