bili_related

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behavioral traits: results are a 'stable snapshot' (implying consistency across pages) and cursor-based pagination for full enumeration. It omits read-only status, auth requirements, and whether the snapshot expires or is stale relative to live data.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance: 'platform-related' and 'complete items' are hedged phrasing that would need to be replaced rather than trimmed.

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 explained, but for a three-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the entry parameter bvid and the limit are unexplained, and the notion of 'stable snapshot' is never grounded. The agent cannot tell what a call returns or how results relate to the input video.

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, but it only implicitly explains the 'cursor' parameter. The required 'bvid' (which video to find relations for) and the 'limit' cap are never mentioned, leaving two of three parameters undefined anywhere in the definition.

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 names a verb and resource ('Read a stable snapshot of platform-related videos') but 'platform-related' is vague and never says what the videos are related to (presumably the bvid input). Siblings like bili_video_info and bili_discover are not differentiated, so an agent must infer that this returns videos related to a given video.

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 only guidance is procedural ('use its cursor for further complete items'), which is pagination mechanics rather than when-to-use. There is no statement of when to choose this over bili_video_info, bili_discover, or bili_search.

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