bilibili_article_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists output fields but does not disclose safety profile (read-only vs. destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., invalid cvid). For a tool with no annotations, this lack of behavioral context is a significant shortfall.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with core purpose and content details. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or filler. Excellent conciseness for a simple retrieval 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 straightforward info retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and output fields. However, it lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and error handling context. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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% with a single parameter (cvid) already described as '专栏文章 ID（CV 号，如 123456）'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed content of Bilibili column articles, listing included fields (title, text, publication time, author, data statistics). The verb '获取' and resource '专栏文章的详细内容' are specific, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like bilibili_video_info (videos) or bilibili_user_articles (list of articles).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions or prerequisites mentioned, such as requiring login or a valid cvid. There is no indication of when not to use it, which is a gap given the many sibling tools covering Bilibili features.

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