bilibili_user_get_followings

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

The description discloses a key behavioral limitation—'非自己只能查看前5页' (non-self users can only view the first 5 pages)—which is important context beyond the schema. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements or error handling, and since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but is not exhaustive.

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 well-structured, front-loading the purpose and using a clear Args/Returns format. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it repeats default values already present in the schema, which is a minor redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers parameter semantics and includes a critical pagination restriction. However, since there is no output schema, it lacks details about the structure of each item in the followings list, and it doesn't mention authentication prerequisites or error scenarios, leaving the tool somewhat incomplete for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: uid (user ID), page_num (starts at 1), page_size (default 20), and order (desc/asc with Chinese explanations). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, especially for the 'order' enum values.

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 '获取' (get) and resource '用户关注列表' (user followings list), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bilibili_user_get_followers (which retrieves followers).

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 does not mention sibling tools or exclusions beyond stating it returns a list of followings, leaving the usage context implied rather than explicit.

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