get_group_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, and it falls short. It implies a read but never states it is read-only, nor does it describe caching implications beyond the raw no_cache flag, permissions required, rate limits, or error behavior. The caching hint is a small plus but is redundant with the schema.

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 description is short and front-loads the purpose before the field list. It is somewhat padded by restating the two parameter descriptions verbatim from the schema, which adds no information, but the total size is appropriate.

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 and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it names the concept and the returned fields but says nothing about response shape, caching semantics, or failure modes. Enough to call it, not enough to call it confidently.

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 schema already documents both group_id and no_cache with the same wording the description repeats. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning (e.g., what no_cache=false returns when stale), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (获取指定 QQ 群的详细信息) and enumerates the returned fields (群名称、人数、群主、群备注), plus the underlying OneBot 11 action name. It is clearly a per-group detail lookup, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings like get_group_list or get_group_member_info, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling read tools (get_group_list, get_group_member_info, get_group_honor_info, etc.). The description only states what the tool does and the OneBot action it maps to; an agent gets no conditions for selection or exclusion.

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