解析 B 站链接 / 编号

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network scope are covered by structured data. The description adds that b23.tv short links are resolved (implying a network hop) and that av⇄BV both directions are supported, but says nothing about failure behavior for unparseable input or about the shape of the resolved result.

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 capability statement is front-loaded and the second clause lists output ID types compactly. The trailing mapping to Bilibili-Evolved features is provenance rather than actionable instruction and could be trimmed, but overall there is little waste.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description helpfully compensates by naming the ID types that come back, which is what an agent needs to chain into bili_video_info or bili_live_room. What remains unstated is the concrete return shape (field names, single vs. multi-match) and permission/rate considerations.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the burden and baseline 3 applies. The description's enumeration of ID families slightly extends the schema by signaling the range of accepted formats, but it adds no syntax or validation detail beyond the schema's own examples.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("解析...链接或编号成结构化 ID") and enumerates exactly which ID families are produced (aid/bvid, ep/ss, mid, room, cv), plus the extra capability of av⇄BV conversion. An agent can tell immediately that this is the URL/ID normalization entry point rather than a content-fetching tool.

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?

Accepted inputs are exemplified and short-link support is mentioned, so usage is implied, but nothing says when to pick this over siblings like bili_video_info or bili_user (which presumably expect a raw ID). There is no explicit "call this first to normalize a link, then pass the result to X" guidance or any exclusion.

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