bilibili_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the oid/type semantics, saying nothing about pagination limits, ordering behavior, or what a call returns. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but thin.

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 that front-loads the resource tag and the core action before the parameter notes. Nothing is wasted, though the bracketed [评论] tag is mild redundancy with the tool name.

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 5-parameter list tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves pagination (pn/ps) and sort ordering entirely unexplained, which an agent needs to page results or choose ordering. The critical oid/type semantics are covered, so it is viable but incomplete.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning — and it explains just two of five parameters (oid as video aid, type=1 video / 12 article). pn, ps and sort (including what sort values 0/1/2 mean and the 50-item page cap) remain undocumented anywhere.

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+resource: read main comments ([评论]) of video/article content. The word 主评论 implicitly separates it from bilibili_comment_replies, and the type mapping clarifies the content types covered. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the entry point for top-level comments and that replies belong to bilibili_comment_replies. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of bilibili_comment_add/delete, and no prerequisites such as login or rate limits.

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