get_video_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden and does add value: it warns that output is untrusted Bilibili text not to be executed, filters emoji placeholders, and preserves timestamp comments. This is strong, but it does not disclose potential auth prerequisites explicitly or explain rate limiting / error cases.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by behavior, mode options, credential pointer, and a security warning. Each sentence contributes, although the warning is repeated in Chinese and English, and the bilingual duplication slightly reduces heuristic efficiency.

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 absence of an output schema makes the description's statement about returned untrusted text important, which is included. The credential warning and pointer to get_credential_setup_instructions provide necessary context for successful invocation. It does not over-explain but covers the key vet: purpose, auth help, safety warning, and modes, leaving enough for assisted use.

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 schema already covers all parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does add high-level behavior (emoji filtering, timestamp prioritization) but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the input schema provides. It does reinforce the mode semantics by restating 'brief (10)' and 'detailed (20+ replies)'.

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 opens with '获取 Bilibili 视频热门评论' which names the exact resource (Bilibili video comments) and the verb (get), and it is clearly different from sibling tools like get_video_transcript or get_video_metadata. The inclusion of hot comments, filtering behavior, and detail levels further strengthens the purpose.

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 gives useful context about modes (brief vs detailed) and a pointer to credential setup instructions, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_video_transcript or get_video_info. There is no clear 'when not to use' or alternative tool guidance beyond the credential dependency.

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