bili_scribe

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It says 'extracts and formats' but does not mention limitations like supported video formats, size limits, or whether it works without audio. The reliance on audio is implied but not fully stated.

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 concise with a clear first sentence and structured Args/Returns sections. No redundant information, but could be more compact without losing clarity.

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 has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential usage info but lacks details on domain (e.g., Bilibili-specific), error handling, or output structure. It is minimally complete for a 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates with brief arg explanations (URL and boolean usage). The note 'Should always be True' adds practical guidance. However, the explanations are minimal and do not specify expected input formats or edge cases.

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 it extracts and formats video content into structured text for LLM processing, with a specific verb ('extracts and formats') and resource ('video content'). No siblings exist, so differentiation is not required.

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 sibling tools to compare, but the description gives parameter-level guidance ('use_audio should always be True'). However, it does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives or conditions under which it might fail.

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