List the authorized user's Bilibili videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent safety. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the required ARC_BASE scope, the official Open Platform context, and the page size limit of 1-50. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations, though it doesn't cover response format or rate limits.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add key constraints (scope, page size). Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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?

For a paginated list tool, the description is fairly complete: it states the resource, scope, pagination limit, and platform. It doesn't explain return structure, but the response_format parameter covers that, and no output schema exists. Minor gaps like sorting or rate limits are not critical for typical usage, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 coverage is high (75%), with descriptions for page, page_size, and response_format. The description only reinforces the page size limit but does not explain parameters like status or response_format. Since schema does most of the work, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; description adds minimal extra semantic value.

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 lists paginated video submissions for the authorized user, using a specific verb 'List' and a distinct resource (videos). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_video or get_video_stats, which focus on single items or statistics.

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 implies usage for listing a user's videos but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives context (authorized user, pagination, scope) but lacks direct comparison with sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implied.

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