get_group_system_msg

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing what a 'system message' is, whether the operation is read-only, what the response format looks like, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool 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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity and context.

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 output schema, no annotations, and a vague description, the definition is incomplete. An agent cannot tell what 'system messages' are, what the return value looks like, or how this tool differs from similar group message tools. More context is needed for correct invocation and interpretation.

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% for the single parameter group_id, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, such as format, constraints, or how it is used. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameter fully.

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 'Get group system messages' states a clear verb and resource, but it is vague about what 'system messages' means and how it differs from siblings like get_group_msg_history or read_group_messages. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity to distinguish it from other group-related message tools.

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 such as get_group_msg_history or read_group_messages. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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