bili_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does usefully disclose read-only scope ('Cannot change permissions') and that the hourly limit is a combined public one. It stops short of explaining whether gates are per-account, how the limit resets, or what forms the response takes for blocked vs allowed states.

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 tight sentences: the capability first, the constraint second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the negative constraint is placed where it is most useful.

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 need not be described here, and the description covers the full scope of what is read. A brief note on how the gates relate to the mutating siblings would make it complete for an agent deciding between them.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless global read with no scoping arguments.

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 ('Read') and enumerates the exact resources: comment/reply/DM/like/favorite/follow gates plus the combined public hourly limit. This is far more specific than the sibling action tools (bili_like, bili_follow, bili_comment_send), though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it replaces.

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?

'Cannot change permissions' implicitly frames this as an inspection/pre-flight tool rather than a mutation, which is useful. But it never says when to call it (e.g., before attempting bili_comment_send or bili_like) or what alternatives exist, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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