bilibili_user_get_contents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important operational details: page_num/page_size pagination (max 50), keyword only valid for video, offset for dynamic type, and the presence of next_offset in dynamic responses. It does not cover error handling or auth, but overall it provides substantial behavior context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear Args list and a Returns note. Every line adds value, and the structure is easy to scan without redundant phrasing.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics and dynamic pagination behavior. It lacks explicit details about the structure of returned content items or error scenarios, but given the tool's moderate complexity, this is a minor gap and overall sufficiently 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter (uid, content_type, page_num, page_size, keyword, offset), including type-specific constraints like keyword only for video and offset only for dynamic. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema titles.

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's function: '获取用户内容' (get user content) and enumerates the specific content types (video/article/album/bangumi/dynamic). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bilibili_user_get_info (user info) and bilibili_user_get_followers/followings.

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 purpose implies usage (fetching a user's posted content), but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor reference to alternative tools. It lacks exclusions or decision criteria, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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