bilibili_live_playurl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the vague phrase '当前可见', without explaining visibility conditions, auth requirements, or what happens when a room is offline.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is structurally clean. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification for a tool with six parameters.

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 six-parameter live-stream resolver with no output schema and zero parameter documentation is not adequately described by one sentence. An agent cannot know how to set qn, codec, format, protocol, or platform, nor what the returned URLs look like, from this description.

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?

With six parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but mentions none of them. Critical parameters such as qn (quality), codec, format, protocol, and platform are left completely undocumented, and even room_id is not explained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 取得 (retrieve) 直播流地址 (live stream URL), with the [直播] prefix anchoring it to the live domain. This clearly separates it from bilibili_video_playurl, but it does not explicitly name that sibling or clarify what '当前可见' (currently visible) means.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as bilibili_live_room_info or bilibili_video_playurl, nor any stated preconditions like needing a room to be live. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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