视频 / 番剧详情

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, network-fetching read. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (including paginated part lists for videos and episode lists plus rating for bangumi links), but it does not cover error behavior for invalid IDs or rate limits. Given that annotations already cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 essentially one dense sentence listing return fields, followed by a short mapping to Bilibili-Evolved features. The return-value information is front-loaded, and the description is generally efficient, though the feature-mapping clause is marginal.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must enumerate what comes back, and it does so thoroughly: video metadata, statistics, tags, part lists, collection info, and bangumi episode lists plus scores. For a one-parameter read tool this covers the essentials; only failure modes and pagination behavior are missing.

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%: the single `input` parameter is already documented as accepting BV号, av号, ep号, ss号, b23.tv short links, and full URLs. The description repeats the concept of video/bangumi links but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific action and resource (获取视频/番剧详情) and enumerates the returned fields (标题、简介、封面、UP主、播放量、分P、合集、番剧评分), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling bili_resolve, which likely handles the same link/ID inputs, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the intended use case: retrieving details for a video or bangumi link. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of bili_resolve (for the same identifier types) or bili_video_streams, bili_danmaku, or bili_subtitles (for fetching other aspects). The agent must infer the choice.

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