bilibili_video_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the action and result contents but does not mention pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. For a read operation, it is adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence conveying the main purpose. It is conciseness but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing inclusion details).

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 has no output schema, so the description should compensate. It mentions included fields but omits ordering, pagination, and any rate limits or authentication. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete but has gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% as both parameters (videoId, max) have descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 verb '获取' (get), the resource 'B站视频的评论列表' (Bilibili video comment list), and specifies included data (content, author info, likes). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like bilibili_video_info or bilibili_video_danmaku.

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 straightforward usage for retrieving comments. It does not explicitly state when to use or alternatives, but given the simple read nature, the context is clear. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so some guidance is missing.

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