get_group_shut_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what permissions or group context are required, whether pagination applies, or any rate-limit/auth behavior.

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 main sentence is front-loaded and names the resource and filter efficiently. The trailing ':param group_id: 群号' is redundant with the schema, which is a minor structural waste but not harmful.

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 simple read-list tool with one fully documented parameter, the description says what is returned (被禁言状态的成员列表). However, with no annotations or output schema, it omits read-only safety context and any response-shape or pagination detail, leaving moderate gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, and the input schema already describes group_id as 群号. The description repeats ':param group_id: 群号' without adding syntax, constraints, or context, so it meets the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 action (获取) and resource (指定群聊当前处于被禁言状态的成员列表), including the muted-members filter that separates it from get_group_member_list. The NapCat extension note adds provenance, and an agent can identify the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent must infer that this tool is for inspecting muted members and is not told when to prefer it over get_group_member_list or other group-management siblings.

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