bili_followings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: results are limited to what is 'accessible' and 'platform privacy limits are respected', warning that the list may be partial. It does not state whether auth is required, whether paging has a max depth, or what happens on an invalid uid.

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?

A single dense sentence with the negated-sibling clarification front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably over-compressed, since several clauses are packed into one line, but every clause carries information.

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 shape need not be explained, and the description covers the two things an agent can't infer: uid typing/paging behavior and privacy-limited results. The unannotated mutation-adjacent risk is low since this is clearly a read tool, leaving only limit/auth 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'String UIDs' clarifies the uid type (non-obvious given it is a string, not a number) and 'resumable pages' explains the cursor's role. The limit parameter and cursor's format/termination semantics are left undocumented.

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... following list') and explicitly negates the nearby write sibling ('not follow/unfollow'), which lets an agent separate it from bili_follow. It stops short of saying whose list is read (the uid param implies a target user) and whether it's the caller's own list by default.

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 exclusion 'not follow/unfollow' implicitly routes mutation intent to bili_follow, which is useful. But there is no positive guidance on when to choose this over bili_user_info or bili_social_events, and no prerequisite/auth conditions are stated.

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