bili_watch_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that reading is free and does not initiate a model call, which is important behavioral context. It also lists the status information returned, but it does not explain authentication needs, whether the job expires, or what happens if the job_id is unknown.

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 two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds useful behavioral context without padding, though the first sentence's dense list of status aspects is slightly hard to parse.

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, and the description adequately conveys the tool's read-only status-checking role. However, for a tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented required job_id parameter, it should do more to explain the parameter's origin and the job lifecycle.

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 the single parameter, job_id. It does not state where the job ID comes from (presumably bili_watch_video), what format it has, or whether it can refer to both pending and completed jobs.

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 uses a clear verb ('Read') and names the resource and returned aspects: a pending video perception job or completed material, coverage, limitations, real usage, and cleanup status. It distinguishes this status-checking tool from the sibling action tool bili_watch_video, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 phrase 'Read a pending ... job' implies this is used after a job has been created, and 'Reading is free and does not initiate a model call' gives useful context for choosing it over a model-triggering sibling. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name the alternative that starts a perception job.

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