get_bilibili_video_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is retrieved (title, cover, etc.) and, by using '获取' (get), implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not mention error behaviors, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The transparency is adequate for a simple info retrieval but lacks deeper behavioral 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('获取 Bilibili 视频的详细信息') and then provides a list of example data fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fillers. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and simple purpose.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It lists key return elements (title, cover, introduction, user info, video list) with an 'etc.' to indicate more. It differentiates from siblings like 'basic info' and 'download URLs', providing enough context for an agent to understand the tool's place. A minor gap is the lack of explicit return format, but the field list offers sufficient clarity for this simple tool.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter 'url' with 'Bilibili 视频链接' (Bilibili video link), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter format, constraints, or how the URL should be crafted. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the added value from the description is minimal, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 purpose: '获取 Bilibili 视频的详细信息' (Get detailed Bilibili video information) and enumerates specific data fields (title, cover, description, user info, video list). This makes it distinct from siblings like 'get_bilibili_basic_info' (basic info) and 'get_bilibili_download_urls' (download URLs), establishing a unique resource and granularity.

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 usage context by specifying 'detailed information' in contrast to sibling 'basic info', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no direct guidance on prerequisites or conditions, making the usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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