bilibili_get_rank

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond parameter semantics—no mention of read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. The name implies a read operation, but explicit disclosure is absent.

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 uses a structured Args/Returns format and is efficient. The rank_type enumeration is long but necessary, and the overall length is appropriate. No redundant sentences are present, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 no output schema, the description only says '排行榜列表' (ranking list), lacking detail on item structure. Given the tool is a fetch/list operation, this may be enough for basic use, but for full completeness it should describe the returned list elements' fields.

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%, yet the description fully explains both parameters: rank_type lists all enum values with Chinese labels, and day clarifies its applicability to PGC types only. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare enums, enabling correct parameter selection.

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 '获取排行榜' (get ranking), which is a specific verb+resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like bilibili_get_hot, but the resource (rank) is distinct enough. A slightly higher score is not given because it lacks a comparative statement against alternatives.

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 siblings such as bilibili_get_hot or bilibili_get_hot_search. It only lists parameters and return value, with no contextual hints about appropriate usage scenarios.

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