get_bilibili_user_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only repeats the name's implication (getting info) and adds nothing about permissions, rate limits, read-only status, or error handling. It essentially restates the tool's name without additional context, which is inadequate for a definition with no annotation support.

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 short and points directly to the action, with a structured 'Args:' section. It has no filler. However, it is so brief that it lacks informative content, so it is concise but not optimized for utility; the efficient format earns a 4.

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 existence of an output schema, return values are covered, but the description omits critical usage context: whether authentication is needed, whether the uid refers to arbitrary users, and how it differs from sibling tools like get_my_bilibili_profile. For a tool with many similar siblings and no annotations, this is incomplete.

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 only provides a title 'Uid' with no description, while the description explains 'uid: Bilibili user ID (UID),' which clarifies the parameter's meaning. This is helpful but minimal—it does not specify format constraints or how to obtain a UID. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but could be more detailed.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get Bilibili user profile information.' It is not a tautology and clearly indicates the action and target. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_my_bilibili_profile or get_bilibili_user_videos, which also involve user data, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it fetches any user's profile by uid, whereas get_my_bilibili_profile might be for the authenticated user, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the parameter alone.

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