bilibili_live_areas

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds that the result is a 'tree', hinting at a hierarchical structure, but says nothing about auth requirements, caching, or the shape/depth of that tree.

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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is perhaps terse to a fault, but nothing in it is wasteful.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description should sketch what the tree contains (area IDs, names, parent/child nesting) so an agent knows what it can do with the result. That information is missing, leaving the agent to call it blind.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required, and the schema is fully consistent with that.

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 names a specific verb and resource (读取 = read, 直播分区树 = live-streaming partition tree), which is clearly distinct from siblings like bilibili_live_rooms or bilibili_live_room_info that deal with actual rooms. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous for a zero-parameter lookup.

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 bilibili_live_rooms or bilibili_live_room_info, nor any mention that the partition tree is typically a prerequisite for discovering area IDs before listing rooms. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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