bili_danmaku

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

No annotations, so the description must carry behavioral burden and it does: it discloses the 6-minute segment limit, snapshot-pagination semantics, and the "no UID reverse lookup" limitation. It omits any permission or rate-limit note, keeping it from a 5.

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 dense sentences that front-load the core purpose and then the paging constraint; nothing is wasted. The telegraphic phrasing is slightly terse but efficient.

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 needn't be described, and the description covers segmenting, paging, and part indexing well. The remaining gap is the meaning of bvid and limit, which is minor against an otherwise complete behavioral picture.

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. It clarifies that part is 1-based, that cursor drives paging, and that start/end seconds define the range, but bvid and limit are never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read original danmaku") and scopes it to "one 6-minute segment." An agent can tell this fetches danmaku timing data rather than comments, but "original" is left undefined and there is no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: use cursor to page the full range snapshot, and explicitly pick a later time range to continue past the 6-minute window. No exclusion guidance against bili_comments or other siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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