get_group_honor_info

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. The 'get_' prefix implies a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure of permission requirements, rate limits, whether an empty result is possible, or what the response contains — significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 and the entry is short, but the :param lines duplicate the schema descriptions word-for-word, which is wasted text given full schema coverage. Structure is fine, content is partly redundant.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and parameters adequately, but it omits any description of return values or result shape and offers no behavioral context. It is the minimum viable without being rich.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the group_id and honor_type documentation verbatim from the schema rather than adding format, constraints, or behavior detail, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 (获取指定 QQ 群的群荣誉信息) and enumerates the honor categories it can return, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does. It doesn't need to distinguish from siblings since no other tool retrieves group honors, but it offers no explicit contrast either, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The only implicit signal is the honor_type default of 'all', which hints at a query use case but is not stated as guidance.

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