dingtalk_chat_group_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it provides none. It does not mention whether results are paginated, what permission is required, whether it is strictly read-only, or any side effects. This is a minimal list operation, but the lack of any behavioral context is a clear gap.

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 and easy to parse. However, it omits potentially useful context, so it is efficient but not maximally informative.

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 tool is a simple list operation with one well-described parameter, so the minimal description is arguably sufficient. However, the lack of output schema and any details about return format or pagination means it is only minimally complete, especially given the risk of confusion with similar listing tools.

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 'id', which is described as the group's openConversationId. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 '列出群成员' clearly states the action (list) and resource (group members), which is specific and unambiguous. It aligns well with the tool name and distinguishes from siblings like dingtalk_contact_dept_list_members, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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 is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or contrast with similar list operations such as dingtalk_contact_dept_list_members. The description is purely a statement of function without usage context.

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