get_group_member_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation, but never states whether the bot must be a group member/admin, whether there are rate limits for large groups, how the response is paginated or ordered, or what no_cache actually costs (a forced refresh re-querying the server). For a tool whose result can be large and whose cache flag has real side-effect cost, these omissions matter.

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?

One short purpose sentence followed by two param lines — appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no filler. It loses a point only because the param lines restate the schema rather than earning their place.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate — the agent knows what it returns (a member list). However, with no annotations and no output schema, nothing describes the structure of returned members or the behavioral cost of no_cache, leaving a real gap.

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's param lines ('群号', '是否强制刷新缓存') are verbatim duplicates of the schema descriptions, adding no meaning beyond it. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema already documents all parameters.

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 in Chinese: fetching the full member list of a specified QQ group, with the OneBot 11 action name as a reference. This is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from the nearby sibling get_group_member_info, which retrieves a single member — the agent must infer the distinction from the tool names alone.

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 tool versus alternatives such as get_group_member_info or get_group_honor_info, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. bot must be in the group) or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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