get_group_root_files

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. The verb '获取' implies a read-only operation, but there is no statement of permissions/auth requirements, pagination or result-size behavior, or how the root listing differs from the folder-scoped variant — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 one-line statement of purpose, with the NapCat/OneBot provenance in parentheses. The trailing ':param group_id: 群号' duplicates the schema and is mildly wasteful, but the description stays short overall.

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?

A simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema; the description conveys what is returned at a high level ('所有文件与文件夹列表'), which is adequate. It omits any detail on result shape (file metadata fields), size limits, or error cases, so it is minimally sufficient.

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 single parameter is already documented as '群号' in the schema; the description merely repeats it via the ':param group_id: 群号' line. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 (获取/list) and resource (QQ 群文件根目录下的文件与文件夹), and the '根目录' (root directory) scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_group_files_by_folder. Clear, though it does not name the 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 resource name — listing group root files. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_group_files_by_folder for subfolder navigation, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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