get_video_chapters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns chapters as defined by creators/platform (source), does not infer chapters, and returns empty list when absent. It also notes multi-P support. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (implied) or any potential side effects. Basic transparency is present.

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 two sentences in Chinese, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by key details (empty list behavior, no inference, multi-P support). No unnecessary words. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values: chapters with title and timestamps, and the empty list case. It covers the main parameter behavior and edge cases. For a simple tool with 2 params, this is sufficiently complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context beyond the schema: it explains 'page' as part number for multi-P videos and 'bvid_or_url' as BV or URL. However, these are largely redundant with the schema descriptions. The added value is marginal, maintaining the baseline.

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 tool retrieves creator/platform-defined chapters for Bilibili videos, including titles and timestamps. It specifies the resource (video chapters), action (get), and provides specific behaviors (no inference on missing chapters, multi-P support). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_video_info or get_video_transcript.

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 provides clear context on when to use (retrieve chapters) and edge cases (returns empty list if no chapters). It mentions multi-P support, which helps with selection. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a simple tool.

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