get_group_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait: results come from cache unless no_cache is set (default True), which is useful. However, it never states that this is a read-only operation or whether any auth/session prerequisites apply.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return fields, then the OneBot 11 API mapping. Only the parameter note is redundant with the schema, so it is close to fully efficient.

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, listing the returned fields compensates well, and the single parameter is covered. Missing only usage context and read-only/permission framing, which are minor for a simple read 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%, and the description merely repeats the no_cache parameter text verbatim from the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does the documentation work and the description adds no syntax or edge-case 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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves all QQ groups the current account has joined, and even enumerates the returned fields (group_id, group_name, member_count, max_member_count). An agent can distinguish it from get_group_info or get_group_member_list by scope, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 alternatives such as get_group_info, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., requiring a logged-in account). Usage is only implied by the tool name and 'current account' phrasing.

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