Get an authorized user's Bilibili video

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about authorization scope (ARC_BASE) and the constraint that only videos owned or co-authored by the authorized user can be accessed. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by constraints. Every word adds value, with no redundant information.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explicitly describe the return value structure beyond the response_format parameter. However, given the simplicity of fetching a single video by ID and rich annotations, the description covers the essential context for correct usage. A minor gap exists in not describing the exact fields returned, but it remains complete enough for a straightforward read operation.

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%, with both resource_id and response_format fully described in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, so a 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 clearly states 'Get one video submission owned or co-authored by the authorized user', which specifies a distinct verb (get), resource (video submission), and ownership scope. It differentiates from sibling tools like bilibili_list_videos (list) and bilibili_get_video_stats (stats) by focusing on a single owned video.

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 explicitly states when not to use the tool ('cannot read arbitrary videos') and mentions a scope requirement (ARC_BASE), which guides appropriate usage. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the exclusion of arbitrary videos is clear guidance.

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