bili_comment_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Beyond implying a read-like lookup, it discloses no safety profile, permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior; the single useful clue is that unseen subreplies may require root/page. That is thin for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short sentences with the core locating condition front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward cryptic rather than clarifying.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description should do more. It omits why one would pick this over other comment tools and provides no format guidance for the required bvid, leaving too much to inference.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for rpid ("exact"), root ("known thread root"), and page (needed for unseen subreply), but leaves bvid entirely unexplained and gives no formats or defaults.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ("Locate a comment") qualified by exact rpid and thread root, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never clarifies what "context" means here (surrounding thread? parent chain?) nor explicitly differentiates it from bili_comments or bili_comment_replies, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

"Previously read references help; unseen subreply can require root/page" is a vague hint about preconditions rather than a when-to-use rule. No alternatives are named and there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use this versus the sibling comment tools.

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