get_bilibili_watch_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the login requirement. It does not disclose pagination behavior, page size, ordering, possible auth-failure behavior, or whether the response is limited to a particular time range.

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-loads the core purpose in one sentence. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but not bloated; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage point (login) and the parameter. Still, with no annotations and no mention of pagination limits or failure modes, it is not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does define 'page' as a page number with default 1, but this adds little beyond the schema's own type and default. It does not clarify 1-based indexing, page size, or valid range.

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 names a specific resource ('your Bilibili watch history') and a specific action ('Get'), with an explicit login requirement. This clearly differentiates it from sibling Bilibili tools like get_bilibili_favorites and get_bilibili_toview_list.

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 a clear prerequisite: the tool requires login. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over other Bilibili getters, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools for similar data.

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