bilibili-comment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the operation is asynchronous and results are automatically polled. However, it does not cover read-only safety, authentication needs, failure modes, or what the initial call returns, leaving some behavior unexplained.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence: the action and target come first, followed by the important async polling caveat. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary schema duplication.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is only minimally complete: it tells the agent what to call and that polling is automatic, while the schema handles parameters. It leaves gaps around return shape, error behavior, and the exact async workflow, which would matter for reliable agent invocation.

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 100%, so all four parameters (url, offset, dataNum, sortType) already have meaningful documentation including defaults and an enum. The description adds only general context and no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 states a specific action and resource: fetch Bilibili video comments, and adds the notable async auto-polling behavior. It is clear and unique among the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from tools like bilibili-video-downloader or bilibili-search-download.

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 gives a clear target use case—retrieving comments for a Bilibili video—and the async polling detail sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention alternatives, or provide exclusion criteria against the many sibling Bilibili and comment-related tools.

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