get_video_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavior information: accepted input formats (BV or any Bilibili link) and the specific output fields. However, it does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which are relevant for a network-backed retrieval tool.

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: it states the returned fields first and then the accepted input formats. There is no filler or repetition, and every clause conveys essential information.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core input constraints and the expected return content. It could be more explicit about failure modes or the exact output shape, but the essential information for invoking the tool correctly is present.

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 must compensate for the undocumented url_or_bvid parameter. It does so by explicitly stating that the parameter accepts a BV number or any Bilibili link, which adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies the resource ('video details') and enumerates the returned fields: title, description, uploader, and multi-part list with cid and duration. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_video_subtitles and get_video_chapters, though it lacks an explicit verb such as '获取'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives among the sibling tools. The note about supporting BV numbers or any Bilibili link clarifies input, not selection criteria, so an agent is left to infer the appropriate use case.

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