get_video_metadata

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

The description includes a critical security warning that returned Bilibili text is untrusted data and should never be executed as instructions. This is a significant behavioral disclosure beyond any annotations (none provided), and it also clarifies the tool does not fetch subtitles or comments, adding transparency about its 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 concise, with two sentences covering purpose, exclusions, and a security warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only essential information, earning a high score for 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers what is returned, what is not returned, and a security warning. The only minor gap is not describing the return format, but with no output schema and a simple metadata retrieval, this is acceptable.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (bvid_or_url) with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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, listing specific fields (title, author, duration, publish date, tags, statistics, multi-P list) and explicitly excludes subtitles and comments. This distinguishes 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 implies usage for metadata retrieval and explicitly states what it does not fetch (subtitles, comments), which helps differentiate from siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_video_info or search_bilibili_videos, though the field list and exclusions provide clear context.

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