bili_social_events

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: stable IDs deduplicate locally, only explicit ack marks events processed, recent_event_id is an association and not a Recent Events write, and there is no background polling or reply. It still omits read-versus-write safety and permission expectations, but the key operational semantics are unusually well covered.

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 compact and free of filler, but it is too compressed for a five-parameter tool with no schema descriptions. The opening noun phrase does not front-load a clear action, making the overall structure less helpful than its brevity suggests.

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-value details are less necessary, but the input side is significantly under-documented. With no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain pagination, source selection, and ack behavior for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 explain all five parameters, but it only adds meaning for ack_event_ids ('explicit ack') and recent_event_id (association, not a write). It leaves num, cursor, and sources unexplained, including how sources relates to the default 'reply,at,dm'.

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 identifies the domain as pending notification/DM references and adds characteristics like 'bounded' and 'unified', but it never states a clear verb such as list, fetch, or check. It does not clearly distinguish the tool from siblings like bili_notifications, bili_dm_unread, or bili_dm_history.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many notification and DM siblings. The only usage-adjacent statement is 'No background polling/reply', which is a behavioral constraint rather than a routing rule.

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