bili_whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: secrets are never echoed back, which reassures an agent this call is safe to inspect. It omits what happens on an unauthenticated/expired session (error vs. empty result) and whether the call hits the network or reads cached state, which matters for a status-check tool.

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 security guarantee front-loaded after the purpose clause; nothing is redundant. It is arguably over-compressed for a tool whose identity semantics (who vs. which user id) drive selection.

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?

A no-argument read with an output schema is a simple contract, and the return shape is already documented, so this is close to complete. The remaining gap is the authentication edge case and the boundary against bili_user_info, both of which an agent needs before choosing this tool.

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; no parameter discussion is needed or expected.

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 says it checks 'saved Bilibili account status', which implies verifying the stored/authenticated session rather than fetching an arbitrary user's profile. But it never states the core outcome (confirming which account is currently logged in), and with a sibling named bili_user_info in the same namespace, an agent cannot confidently tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 guidance on when to call this versus bili_user_info, bili_account_action_status, or bili_permissions. The 'never return Cookie/token values' clause is a safety note, not a usage condition, so the agent must infer the call context entirely.

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