bili_video_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' plus the explicit scope exclusion ('no video frames') does establish this as a non-mutating metadata fetch, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior for invalid bvids.

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 compact sentence with the returned fields front-loaded and the scope exclusion last. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 explanation is not required, and the scope statement covers what the tool returns. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the identifier format and any access requirements remain unstated for a tool that is otherwise simple.

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% and there is one required parameter, 'bvid', which the description never mentions. An agent gets no hint that it is a Bilibili BV identifier or what format is expected (e.g. 'BV' prefix), so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates exactly which fields are returned: description, author, statistics, number of parts. The closing clause 'no video frames' scopes it away from playback tools like bili_watch_video, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'no video frames' exclusion hints that frame/playback retrieval lives elsewhere, but the description never states when to pick this over bili_watch_video, bili_browse_advance, or bili_related, nor does it state any prerequisites.

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