bilibili_my_feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination-continuation behavior via offset, which is genuine value, but says nothing about the login requirement implied by '当前登录用户' or about page size / termination conditions.

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?

Two short clauses, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the pagination hint. It is efficient, though the offset note is stated as a bare instruction rather than integrated into a fuller usage sentence.

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?

With no output schema, an agent cannot learn what a feed entry looks like, and the description does not say whether results are mixed dynamic types or how the type filter narrows them. Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema is trivial, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 must compensate. It does explain offset as the pagination cursor, which is more than the bare schema (default "") provides, but the type parameter's enum (all/video/pgc/article) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters to be inferred from self-descriptive enum values.

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 and resource: read ([读取]) the following feed ([关注动态]) of the currently logged-in user, with a [动态] category tag. This implicitly separates it from bilibili_user_feed (a named user's feed) and bilibili_my_history, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the distinction relies on the reader noticing '当前登录用户'.

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?

The only usage guidance is the pagination note ('后续分页传offset'), which tells the agent how to continue a listing but not when to pick this tool over bilibili_user_feed, bilibili_my_history, or bilibili_popular. Usage is implied by the 'my' scope rather than stated.

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