bilibili_live_info

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

There are no annotations to rely on, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that '人气值' is a heat indicator, not real viewership, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether authentication or cookies are required, what happens on invalid input, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read-like operation, basic safety is assumed but not explicit.

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 extremely concise with only two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists key outputs with a crucial clarification. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), so the description covers basic input-output expectations. It lists return fields and clarifies the popularity metric. However, it does not specify error handling (e.g., non-existent uid), authentication needs, or return format structure. Given no output schema, more detail on the response would improve completeness.

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% for the single parameter 'uid', so baseline is 3. The description adds that uid can be obtained via bilibili_search, providing useful context beyond the schema. However, no additional semantic depth is added (e.g., format constraints, example values).

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 the verb '查询' (query) and the resource 'B站 UP 主的直播间信息' (Bilibili UP主's live room information). It lists specific return fields (live status, title, popularity, followers, category, danmaku hot words), making the tool's function distinct from siblings like bilibili_user_info or bilibili_video_info.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate usage are mentioned. The only additional note is about the popularity metric, which is a behavioral clarification, not usage guidance.

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