whale_video

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — the login requirement, which an agent needs to anticipate auth failures — but it says nothing about what the upstream fetch returns or how the four data types are bundled.

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?

It is short and front-loads the resource list, but the closing sentence ('Text analysis is not proof of visually watching video') is cryptic and arguably irrelevant to invoking the tool, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and only a regex for bvid, the description should explain what a call returns and when to prefer it over the dedicated subtitle/comment tools. It instead stays generic and spends its one value-add sentence on an ambiguous caveat.

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?

The single required parameter bvid has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the explanatory burden — but it never mentions bvid, its format, or that it is a Bilibili video ID. The schema's regex pattern is the only hint, leaving the description failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resources ('metadata, subtitles, danmaku and comment digest') but is a noun phrase with no verb, and it does not explain how this aggregate tool differs from siblings like whale_subtitles or whale_comments. An agent can infer it fetches video-associated content for a given video, but the scope boundary versus siblings stays murky.

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?

'May require login' offers a prerequisite, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as whale_subtitles or whale_comments even though those siblings clearly overlap. The final sentence about text analysis is not usage guidance in any actionable sense.

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