B站公开视频信息

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by stating it does not simulate login or download restricted content, reinforcing the read-only and compliant nature. This provides extra context beyond annotations.

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 short, focused sentences without any fluff. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds behavioral constraints. Every word serves a 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?

Considering the simple read-only nature, full schema documentation, and informative annotations, the description is largely complete. It lacks details about the return format or field contents, but given the openWorldHint=true annotation and the tool's straightforward purpose, this is acceptable. A perfect score would require mention of typical response fields.

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%, with both parameters having clear descriptions: 'input' as BV号/AV号/link and 'includePages' as boolean default true. The description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '获取 Bilibili 公开视频基础信息。' (Get Bilibili public video basic information), specifying the verb 'get', resource 'Bilibili video', and scope 'public'. Among the sibling tools (Amap, express, holiday, IP, etc.), this uniquely targets Bilibili video, making it easily distinguishable.

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 includes '只访问公开信息，不模拟登录、不下载受限内容。' (Only access public info, no simulated login, no downloading restricted content), which tells the agent when to use (for public info) and implicitly when not to use (for restricted content). However, no explicit alternative tool is named among siblings, though none exist for Bilibili video.

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