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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool uses at most 2 API calls regardless of target count, and lists parameters. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, but as a query tool, the behavior is clear and well-described.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose line, followed by efficiency note, then parameter details. It is informative but not overly verbose, earning its length.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is queried (recent message context) and the parameters, which is sufficient for a batch query tool. It could mention return format or error handling, but overall complete enough for its complexity.

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 explain parameters. It thoroughly describes 'targets' as a list of dicts with optional 'target_type' and provides an example, and explains 'limit' as number of recent messages per target. This adds full meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Batch query recent message context for multiple targets,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_recent_context by highlighting the batch nature and efficiency over multiple calls.

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?

The description explicitly states it is 'More efficient than calling get_recent_context multiple times' and provides API call optimization details, guiding when to use this tool instead of the single-target alternative. No exclusions are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or what happens if the statuses are not available. It fails to inform about potential impacts or prerequisites beyond the bare action.

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, short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and directly states what is checked, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple status check. However, it could be slightly improved by clarifying the expected output or status values, but overall it provides enough context for basic use.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from this since it correctly indicates no input is needed.

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 clearly states that the tool checks 'QQ login status' and 'NapCat connection status', providing a specific verb and two clear resources. Among the sibling tools, which include actions like sending messages or managing group members, this is the only one explicitly for status checking, so it is well-distinguished.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when it should not be used. It is implied that it might be used before performing actions that require an active connection, but this is not explicit, leaving the agent with insufficient decision-making context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool 'replaces raw messages with a compressed summary, freeing up the buffer,' which clearly conveys the destructive nature and effect. Could be improved by noting irreversibility or return value.

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 concise, with the main purpose in the first line, followed by a behavioral explanation and usage guideline in the second paragraph, then parameter docs. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, behavior, and parameters adequately. No output schema is present, so return values are not described, but for a compression tool the main effect is clear. It covers the essential information for an agent to decide when to use it.

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 0%, but the description includes an Args section that explains both parameters: target as 'Group ID or friend QQ ID' and target_type with default 'group'. This adds necessary meaning beyond the bare schema, though ID format could be more specific.

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 clearly states the action ('Compress'), resource ('buffered messages'), and scope ('for a target into a summary'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_recent_context and batch_get_recent_context by focusing on compression, not retrieval.

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?

The description explicitly advises using this tool 'after reading context when you want to archive old messages.' It provides a clear usage context but does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives.

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

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. The description only states 'get', implying a read operation, but lacks details such as whether the list includes all groups, pagination, or any rate limits.

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?

Single sentence with no superfluous words. Front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool retrieves. However, it lacks any usage context or caveats, which would elevate it to a 5.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description effectively covers the tool's purpose.

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 clearly states the action ('Get the list') and the resource ('QQ groups the bot has joined'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_friend_list or get_group_member_list by specifying groups vs friends or members.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it lists groups, there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions provided.

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

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

Discloses that messages are buffered (backfill+real-time) and returned as URLs in image_urls field. Lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or error behavior, but overall decent for a read-only 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?

Concise and well-structured with a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers main behavior (uncompressed, buffered, image URLs) but missing details on error handling, validation, or what happens when target is not monitored. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description fully explains each parameter: target (Group ID or friend QQ), target_type (group/private), limit (default 200). Adds clarity beyond raw 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?

Clearly states it retrieves recent message context for monitored groups or whitelisted friends. Differentiates from sibling 'compress_context' by noting it returns uncompressed messages.

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?

Explicitly recommends 'compress_context' as an alternative for compression. However, does not clarify when not to use this tool or prerequisites like needing to have the target monitored.

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

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

Provides behavioral details (monitored group/whitelisted friend, base64 format without prefix) but no annotations exist. Lacks disclosures on permissions, rate limits, or failure 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?

Two sentences front-load purpose, followed by parameter list. No wasted words, efficient structure.

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?

Covers parameters adequately but lacks details on return value, error handling, file size limits, and exact encoding validation. Acceptable for simple tool but gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds essential meaning: target is ID, image base64 encoding, target_type default/options, reply_to optional. Compensates well for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'send' and resource 'image', and distinguishes from siblings like send_message, send_file, send_voice by specifying image-specific details.

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?

Implies usage for sending images to groups or friends, but lacks explicit when to use vs alternatives like send_message with image attachment, and no when-not scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits like message splitting with typing delays and reply functionality, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when sending fails. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks operational context.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The information is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics thoroughly but lacks information about return values, error handling, authentication requirements, and operational constraints. It's complete for basic usage but insufficient for robust implementation.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters in detail. It clarifies target types, optional reply functionality, and sophisticated message splitting behavior including the interaction between split_content and num_chunks. This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action ('Send a message') and target ('to a monitored group or whitelisted friend'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_image' beyond the message type, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_image' or other communication methods. It mentions target types but doesn't explain when to choose 'group' vs 'private' or prerequisites for sending messages.

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