bili_favorite_lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that the operation is read-only and never creates or modifies folders. It also mentions a stable local-page cursor, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain access requirements for 'accessible' folders or pagination 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 short, front-loaded, and avoids filler. The phrase 'string IDs and stable local-page cursor' is slightly compressed and ambiguous, but the read-only guarantee is stated clearly and early.

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 output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. Still, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits the limit parameter and does not clarify access or pagination behavior. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 should compensate for all three parameters. It explains that an empty uid means the caller's own account and that cursor is a stable local-page cursor, but it never explains the limit parameter. Partial coverage leaves meaningful 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: reading accessible favorite folders. It distinguishes itself from mutation sibling bili_favorite_update by explicitly saying it never creates or modifies folders. The only minor gap is that 'accessible' is somewhat vague, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

It provides one useful usage condition: an empty uid means the caller's own account. The read-only constraint also implicitly rules out mutation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as bili_favorite_update or bili_favorite_content. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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