B站综合热门

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and network profile is covered. The description adds that pagination is supported and that tags are enriched, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about return shape, page limits, or what happens when include_tags is disabled.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the backing endpoint, and the two capability areas, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a read-only, fully documented, zero-required-parameter list tool this covers the essentials, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It is still thin on how the pagination parameters combine and whether tags cost extra calls, which an agent would want for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all five parameters (ps, page, limit, tag_limit, include_tags) are already documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description only gestures at '分页与标签补齐' without adding syntax or interaction detail (e.g. how limit relates to ps), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (获取) and resource (B 站综合热门视频) and even cites the upstream endpoint /v/popular/all, so the agent knows exactly what content comes back. It does not distinguish itself from same-family siblings like rank_list, weekly_list or precious_list, leaving the agent to infer which 'list' tool applies.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling list tools (rank_list, weekly_list, precious_list). Usage is only implied by the tool name and the endpoint reference.

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