get_bilibili_user_videos

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 discloses the operation (get) and pagination via page parameter, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, whether the result is ordered, or what happens with invalid/private uids. For a read tool with no annotations, this is a minimal but not rich disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is redundant with the schema but not harmful. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter restatements could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The tool is a simple paginated list with 2 params. However, with no annotations and no mention of pagination size, ordering, or error behavior, the description is adequate but not complete. It's a minimum viable definition for a simple read 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%, so the description must compensate. It restates 'uid: User ID' and 'page: Page number (default: 1)', which adds almost nothing beyond the schema's type/default. It doesn't explain what page means (e.g., page size, 1-indexed) or any constraints on uid. The description fails to add meaningful semantics.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get videos uploaded by a Bilibili user.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bilibili_video_info (single video) and search_bilibili_videos (search). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the resource and scope are clear.

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: call it when you need a user's uploaded videos, given a uid. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like search_bilibili_videos or get_bilibili_video_info. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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