bilibili_popular

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It reveals the tool uses a public HTTP API and has no auth requirements, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or whether results are real-time. The output schema likely covers return structure, so extra description is not critical.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value, and no unnecessary information is present.

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 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the main context. It could mention update frequency or result type, but the output schema likely handles return details. Minor gap: no mention of default limit.

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 only parameter 'limit' is fully documented in the schema (description: '返回条数上限（默认 20）'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves Bilibili's current hot video list, with specific verb '获取' and resource 'B站当前热门视频榜'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like bilibili_search or bilibili_video by focusing on popular content.

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 clear context that the API is public and requires no login or browser, indicating ease of use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bilibili_search for specific queries.

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