send_group_forward_msg

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, yet it says nothing about required permissions, rate limits, failure behavior, or what the call returns. The node-format example is invocation detail rather than behavioral disclosure, so this is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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-loads the purpose, then the critical node format, then params. It is well-sized, though the trailing :param lines largely repeat the schema descriptions and add little.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key payload format, which is the minimum viable for a 2-param send tool. It omits success/failure semantics and any return info an agent might need.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by giving a concrete node example showing the required {type, data{name, uin, content}} structure that the schema's bare 'list of node dicts' does not convey.

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 and resource ('向指定群聊发送合并转发消息') plus the underlying NapCat action name, so an agent can tell it apart from send_group_msg or send_private_forward_msg by name. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it stops 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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (send_group_msg, send_private_forward_msg, get_forward_msg) that could be confused with it. Usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.

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