send_group_msg

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 usefully discloses CQ-code support and the auto_escape plain-text mode, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, what happens on failure, or the return value (e.g., message_id) of a send operation.

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, followed by the supported message formats. The trailing :param block largely duplicates the schema, which is mild redundancy, but overall the text is efficient and well-ordered.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers message formatting well but omits the return contract (message identifier) and error/edge behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for correct invocation handling.

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. The description's :param lines simply restate the schema descriptions verbatim, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 QQ 群发送群聊消息') with the underlying OneBot 11 action named, so an agent immediately knows what it does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like send_msg or send_group_forward_msg, 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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (send a message to a group), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as send_msg (unified) or send_group_forward_msg (forwarded content). An agent must infer the choice from sibling names alone.

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