bilibili_weekly

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior of omitting the number, but does not describe the response structure, potential errors, or any prerequisites. For a simple read-only operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 fluff, front-loading the core purpose and then explaining the parameter behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and the parameter usage, but with no output schema, it leaves the response structure unspecified. An agent would not know what fields an 'issue' contains, which could hinder parsing. Still, for a simple getter, it is mostly sufficient.

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% since the single parameter 'number' is fully described in the schema as 'Positive issue number; omit for the latest issue'. The description reinforces this behavior but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Bilibili weekly selected-video issue', and further explains it returns one issue from the archive. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bilibili_popular or bilibili_ranking, which serve different content types.

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 clear context on what the tool does and how to use the optional parameter, including the behavior of omitting it to get the latest issue. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specific focus on weekly selected-video issues makes the use case clear.

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