bilibili_video_get_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It describes return fields (title, desc, stat, pages, tags) which gives some insight into behavior, but it does not disclose whether authentication is required, any rate limits, or any potential errors. The operation is implicitly read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 statement in the first line, followed by a simple Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity—one parameter, no output schema, no annotations—the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter meaning, and the shape of return data. It lacks explicit failure conditions, but for a basic getter this is sufficient.

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 only provides the type string with no description, but the description's Args section explains bvid as the video's BV number with an example (BV1xx411c7mD). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 '获取视频完整信息' (get complete video information) and enumerates what's included: basic info, statistics, p-list, tags. This specific verb+resource framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like bilibili_video_get_danmaku or bilibili_video_get_ai_conclusion.

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 implies this tool is for when you need the full video metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The sibling tool names hint at alternatives, but the description itself provides no direct guidance.

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