bili_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that data is external and untrusted, that IDs are strings, and that pagination can be page-based or cursor-based. However, it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, read-only status explicitly, or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 short, dense, and front-loaded with the core operation. Every clause adds information: sortable modes, returned fields, ID typing, pagination mode, and untrusted-data warning. There is no wasted phrasing.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the untrusted-data warning is valuable. Still, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description omits enough parameter and safety detail that an agent may need to infer behavior around num, bvid, and cursor usage.

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 must compensate for all five parameters. It adds meaning for sort ('hot/time'), pagination ('page or native cursor'), and BV/IDs as strings, but leaves num undefined and does not clarify bvid or cursor format. It partially compensates but still has clear gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one hot/time comment page.' It also lists the returned comment fields and notes nested references. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like bili_comment_replies or bili_comment_context, so it falls short of a 5.

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 mentions 'page or native cursor' and 'hot/time' sorting, but gives no guidance on when to use page versus cursor, when to choose hot versus time, or when to use this tool instead of related comment tools. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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