bilibili_reply

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral aspects. It only states the action (post/reply) but omits critical details: authentication needs, rate limits, idempotency, or the distinction between root and parent replies. The schema descriptions don't compensate for these gaps.

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, no redundancy, directly communicates the core action. Every word earns its place.

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?

Tool has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description is too brief to cover usage scenarios (e.g., when to use rootRpid vs parentRpid, character limits, response handling). Leaves the agent needing to infer important behavioral context.

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 descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only summarizes the action. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 states verb '发布评论或回复' (post/reply) and resource 'B站视频下' (under Bilibili videos), clearly distinguishing from siblings like bilibili_video_comments (view comments) and bilibili_send_danmaku (send danmaku). However, the schema includes 'type' for columns and dynamics, making the scope slightly narrower than described.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., bilibili_send_danmaku for scrolling messages). No prerequisites like login requirement or context about replying to existing comments.

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