get_group_ignore_add_request

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 verb 'Get' implies a read-only action, but there is no mention of permission requirements, return behavior, side effects, or data scope beyond the resource name.

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 phrase with no filler, redundant wording, or unnecessary examples. It front-loads the operation and resource immediately, and every word contributes to the stated purpose.

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 does not tell the agent what response to expect or whether special access is needed. Given the simple one-parameter schema, this is minimally usable, but it lacks enough behavioral context to be considered complete.

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 only parameter is fully documented in the schema ('group_id' described as 'Group ID'), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which puts it at the baseline of 3.

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 uses a clear verb and resource phrase, 'Get group ignored join requests', which distinguishes it at the wording level from many sibling tools. It does not explicitly contrast it with related tools like get_group_system_msg or set_group_add_request, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 invoke this tool versus the sibling request-related tools. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or excluded scenarios, leaving the agent to infer when 'ignored join requests' is the right concept.

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