bilibili_session_list

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

Without annotations, the description handles the burden well. It discloses the conditional behavior and parameter effects, including noted limitations (e.g., session_type only for list, begin_seqno only for chat records). However, it doesn't mention potential pagination limits or data format details.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-line summary, then conditional logic, then parameter details. It's compact but thorough, with no redundant fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough to correctly invoke the tool for both modes. The Returns line is terse but acceptable. It could be improved by describing the structure of the returned data, but given the tool's simplicity, it's adequate.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, default values, allowed values for session_type, and applicability per mode. This is exactly what's needed.

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 either a session list or chat history, with explicit conditional logic based on talker_id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle notifications or sending.

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?

It provides clear conditional usage instructions: without talker_id for list, with talker_id for chat records. It also explains which parameters apply to which mode. However, it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives among sibling tools or when not to use it.

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