bilibili_session_send

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. It only states '发送结果' (send result) and does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or failure modes. The send action implies mutation but no further transparency is offered.

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 highly concise, using short labeled sections for Arguments and Returns. Every line is informative, with no fluff or repetition, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 send operation, the description covers the core parameters and states a return value, but the return is vague ('发送结果'). It lacks any mention of possible errors or success indicators, which is a gap given no output schema or annotations. Still, the low complexity makes it minimally 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explicitly listing both parameters with meaning: receiver_id is UID and content is plain text message. This adds clear value beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though it omits constraints like length or format.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure: '发送私信文本消息' (send private message text). It clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bilibili_session_list or bilibili_session_notifications.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclude any scenarios, leaving the agent to infer that it is for sending messages only.

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