get_group_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Read-only. No side effects,' which reinforces but doesn't significantly expand beyond annotations. It does mention return fields, adding some 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 four sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value: purpose, return fields, usage, alternatives.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains return data (group IDs, names, member counts). The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description covers all needed context.

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 no parameters (100% coverage). The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns and how to use it, which is sufficient. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all QQ groups the bot has joined.' It specifies the return data (group IDs, names, member counts) and distinguishes from siblings like get_friend_list and batch_get_recent_context.

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 tells when to use the tool ('discover valid group IDs for send_message, get_recent_context, or other group-targeting tools') and provides alternatives: 'For friend list use get_friend_list instead. For batch name resolution use batch_get_recent_context.'

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