bili_dm_action_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it states the operation is read-only, has no side effect/retry, exposes no message text/credentials, and warns that platform recipient read status is unknown. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the key safety and limitation context is disclosed.

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 and front-loads what the tool reads. Every clause adds relevant scope or caveat, though the telegraphic 'no side effect/retry' phrasing is slightly terse. It wastes little space overall.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so return value details are not required. The description covers non-obvious safety and read-status caveats, but it omits the origin/meaning of action_id and does not explicitly route the agent against sibling DM tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, action_id, with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies action_id refers to a DM send action but does not explain where to obtain it, its format, or its lifecycle. That leaves an important parameter under-specified.

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: reading durable metadata for a DM send. It also clarifies that this is not a send/retry operation, which helps differentiate it from bili_dm_send. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, but the purpose is clear enough to select the tool.

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 this is used to inspect the result/status of a DM send, especially by saying 'no side effect/retry.' However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus bili_dm_history, bili_dm_sessions, or bili_dm_unread. Usage is inferable but not fully guided.

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