get_group_msg_history

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. It does disclose one useful behavior — message_seq omitted means pulling backwards from the newest message — but says nothing about result ordering, pagination limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions for an invalid/ungrouped group_id.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence and the parameter notes are terse. The param lines are largely redundant with the schema, which slightly dilutes efficiency, but there is no filler prose.

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 query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the inputs but omits the return shape (what a message record looks like) and any behavioral caveats. It is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent guessing about response structure and failure modes.

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 all three parameters, and the description repeats them nearly verbatim (群号, 获取的消息条数，默认 20, 起始消息序号). It adds no format, range, or semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: fetch historical chat records for a specified group chat via NapCat's OneBot 11 get_group_msg_history action. An agent immediately knows what the tool returns. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_friend_msg_history or get_recent_messages, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_recent_messages, get_msg, or get_friend_msg_history, and no prerequisites (e.g. the QQ account must be logged in). Usage is only implied by the tool name and the group_id parameter.

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