get_comments

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by specifying that it retrieves 'popular comments' (implying a filtered subset) and details the return content (comment content, user info, metadata like like counts), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured for clarity, with no wasted sentences. However, the example URL is somewhat long, and the return description could be slightly more concise, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the parameter and return values, but without annotations covering all behavioral aspects (e.g., no output schema means return format isn't fully defined), it could benefit from more details on error handling or limitations. It's complete enough for basic use but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description compensates well by explaining the 'url' parameter: 'Bilibili video URL, e.g., https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1x341177NN.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema, including an example, though it could specify format constraints more explicitly. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, and this meets that standard.

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: 'Get popular comments from a Bilibili video.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('popular comments'), and target ('Bilibili video'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_danmaku or get_subtitles, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (get_danmaku, get_subtitles) or clarify scenarios where this tool is preferred, such as for popular versus all comments. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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