直播间信息

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network-openness are covered. The description adds value by naming the data returned (title, live status, popularity, partition, start time), which substitutes for the missing output schema, but says nothing about failure modes for nonexistent or offline rooms.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It is terse but every word carries information; only slightly clipped for a description serving as the sole summary of a tool.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the description plus annotations plus the fully documented schema cover what an agent needs. The enumerated return fields compensate for the absence of an output schema; only error/edge-case behavior is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a room ID or a live.bilibili.com URL. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb (查询) and resource (直播间) plus an enumeration of the fields returned (标题, 开播状态, 人气, 分区, 开播时间). No sibling covers live rooms, so the tool is distinguishable by name alone, though the description never explicitly contrasts it with bili_video_info or bili_user.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer bili_video_info or bili_user instead, and no note that it works for offline rooms. Usage is only implied by the field list, similar to the calibration case that scored 2.

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