get_group_member_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '获取' implies a read-only lookup and the enumerated return fields are useful output context (especially with no output schema), but the description never explicitly states the operation is side-effect-free, nor how the no_cache refresh behaves.

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 sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, but the three ':param' lines duplicate the schema verbatim and earn no place given 100% schema coverage, adding pure redundancy.

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 enumeration of returned fields (card, nickname, role, join time, last speak time, title) usefully compensates by telling the agent what comes back. Only the read-only/caching semantics remain unstated for a definition with no annotations.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The ':param' lines in the description simply restate 群号, 群成员 QQ 号, and 是否强制刷新缓存, adding no meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('获取指定群成员的详细资料') and enumerates exactly what is returned (群名片 card, 昵称 nickname, 群角色 role[owner/admin/member], 入群时间, 最后发言时间, 头衔). This clearly separates it from list-oriented siblings like get_group_member_list and get_stranger_info, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: fetch details for one specific member identified by group_id + user_id. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_group_member_list, nor any prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance.

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