group_query

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'query', implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'page' and 'size' parameters), filtering capabilities (via 'id' and 'name'), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a query tool with multiple parameters.

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 description is a single phrase '查询分组列表', which is very concise and front-loaded. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it lacks necessary details for a tool with 4 parameters. It earns points for brevity but loses some for inadequate content.

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?

Given complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or output, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly. For a query tool with filtering and pagination, this is inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention any parameters or their semantics. The input schema includes 'page', 'size', 'id', and 'name', but the description provides no context on how these affect the query (e.g., pagination, filtering). This leaves parameters undocumented and adds no value beyond the 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?

The description '查询分组列表' (Query group list) states the verb 'query' and resource 'group list', which gives a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what exactly is being queried (e.g., all groups, filtered groups) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'group_create' or 'env_query'. It's not tautological but lacks specificity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'env_query' and 'proxy_query' for querying other resources, but the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's a generic statement with no usage instructions.

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