get_group_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned data (name, member count, owner, remark) and cites the underlying OneBot 11 action, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or the practical effect of no_cache beyond its literal meaning.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the whole thing is short. The trailing ':param' block duplicates the schema, which is mild redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is a valuable substitute for documenting the return value. However, the description omits error cases and any auth or rate-limit context, leaving it only minimally complete for a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool.

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 both parameters are already documented. The ':param' lines merely restate the schema descriptions verbatim (目标群号, 是否不使用缓存) without adding format, range, or behavioral detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description 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), which clearly distinguishes it from the list-style siblings like get_group_list. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation by name, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 mention of alternatives (e.g. get_group_list for enumerating groups). The agent must infer usage context entirely on its own.

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