get_video_metadata

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 accurately describes a read-only operation retrieving metadata. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects, but for a simple data retrieval tool, the description is sufficiently transparent given the scope.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence lists what the tool returns, and the second explicitly excludes subtitles and comments. No filler words, essential information front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, low complexity), the description covers the main purpose and output fields adequately. It lacks details on return structure, but the listed metadata fields provide sufficient context for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 parameter 'bvid_or_url' has a schema description that already explains its meaning (Bilibili BV number or full URL). The tool description adds no additional context or formatting details, so it provides no extra value beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Bilibili video metadata and lists specific fields (title, author, duration, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself by stating what it does NOT fetch (subtitles or comments), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_video_comments and 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_video_info, get_video_chapters, or search_bilibili_videos. The negative statement about subtitles/comments provides some implicit guidance, but lacks clear usage context or preconditions.

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