get_bilibili_following_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently notes the 'requires login' condition for the self-following case and documents the page parameter. However, it does not discuss authentication for other-user lookups, rate limits, or side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by a short, readable Args block. Every sentence adds information about usage or parameters, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 only two simple optional parameters and an output schema present, the description is largely complete for invocation. It covers the tool's purpose, the meaning of both parameters, and the key auth caveat for self-lookup. It does not mention edge cases like invalid uids or pagination limits, but these are not critical for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining both parameters: uid is 'User ID' with the self-lookup behavior, and page is 'Page number (default: 1).' The uid semantics go beyond the schema's bare type and default; the page explanation is minimal but adequate.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get Bilibili user's following list.' It is clear about what the tool does and is differentiated from sibling tools like get_bilibili_favorites or get_bilibili_user_videos by naming the 'following list' resource. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 usage context by explaining that omitting uid returns your own following list and requires login. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the login caveat and parameter behavior imply the main usage pattern.

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