bilibili_favorite_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that folders must be 'visible', which is useful, but it says nothing about auth requirements, whether paging beyond the last page errors or returns empty, or rate limits for an openWorld read.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, which is fine as a headline, but at this length the compactness is a symptom of under-specification rather than discipline. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the tag and the verb.

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 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema needs far more than this: which id media_id expects, how tid/type narrow results, and how ordering interacts with paging are all missing. An agent could invoke it, but only by guessing at five of six parameters.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: media_id (required), pn/ps paging bounds (1-1000, 1-50), tid category filter, type, and the order enum (mtime/view/pubtime) are never explained. Only the word '分页' gestures at pn/ps.

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 the verb and resource: paginated read of videos inside a favorites folder (收藏夹). This is distinguishable from bilibili_favorite_folders, which lists the folders themselves, but the description never says so explicitly, and the bracketed tag '[收藏]' plus a single short sentence leaves the scope ('visible' only) under-explained.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus bilibili_favorite_folders (to find a media_id first) or bilibili_video_info (for details on a returned video). The 'visible favorites folder' wording hints that private folders are out of reach but never states it as a precondition.

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