bilibili_popular

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the feed is returned 'in upstream order' and explains pagination by passing next_cursor back as cursor. This gives useful behavioral context beyond the bare tool name, though it does not describe response structure 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the essential pagination behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 read-only feed endpoint with one optional parameter, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is returned, the ordering, and how to paginate. Absence of an output schema means the agent does not know exact response fields, but the next_cursor handshake is specified, which covers the key operational need.

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%, so the schema already documents the cursor parameter and its default. The description reinforces how to use cursor for pagination but adds little meaning beyond the schema's 'Upstream cursor from the previous response; defaults to 0'.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get current popular Bilibili videos' and explains it returns Bilibili's popular-video feed. It does not explicitly call out sibling tools like bilibili_ranking or bilibili_must_watch, so it lacks explicit differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the user wants the current popular Bilibili video feed. However, it provides no explicit guidance versus the many sibling Bilibili tools (ranking, weekly, must_watch, etc.), so an agent is left to infer which one is appropriate.

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