bilibili_session_interactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds pagination mechanics via last_id and last_time, which is useful. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, whether results are ordered, or any side effects, though as a read operation it is likely safe. More detail on return structure would improve transparency.

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 concise and structured as a docstring with Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the main purpose and each line provides necessary information without filler. It earns the space used.

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 simple listing tool, the description covers the main parameters and return type ('互动消息列表'). However, it does not specify the structure of the returned messages, whether last_id and last_time are required together, or any error cases. Given there is no output schema or annotations, more detail would improve completeness for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: interaction_type enumerates the types, last_id is the last ID for pagination, and last_time is the timestamp for pagination. This goes beyond the raw schema, which only provides types and defaults, and gives functional meaning.

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 the tool retrieves interaction messages (replies, likes, @messages) with a specific verb and resource. The enum for interaction_type clarifies the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like session_list or session_send. However, it does not explicitly contrast with bilibili_session_notifications, which could be seen as overlapping.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it does and parameter meanings. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions, so users must infer usage from the name.

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