bilibili_subtitles

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely independent context: some AI subtitles require a logged-in session and depend on platform visibility, which explains why calling this tool may return nothing. It does not say what is returned when tracks exist, such as language or AI-generated flags, or whether the call is rate-limited.

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 compact clauses with no filler, and the caveat about authentication is placed right after the core purpose. The leading [字幕与弹幕] tag is questionable clutter because it names a sibling's domain, but the rest is efficient.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description says nothing about what a successful response contains, such as available tracks, their languages, or whether the subtitles are AI-generated. Combined with the missing differentiation from bilibili_subtitle_text, an agent has to guess both what is returned and when to call this tool rather than the sibling.

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 both parameters rely on the description, but 分P字幕轨道 only indirectly hints that cid identifies the video part. The description never explains that bvid is the video ID, that cid is the part ID, or how to obtain the cid, leaving the agent dependent on the schema's type and pattern alone.

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 has a specific verb-resource pair: 查询字幕轨道, and it notes that this is per-P (分P), which explains the cid parameter. However, the bracketed tag [字幕与弹幕] wrongly suggests this tool also handles danmaku, which is actually the sibling bilibili_danmaku, and the description never distinguishes this tool from bilibili_subtitle_text, the actual closest sibling.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool rather than bilibili_subtitle_text, which presumably retrieves the same subtitles. It also gives no prerequisites about how bvid and cid must be obtained, for example via bilibili_video_pages. Only the implicit hint that 部分AI字幕 depend on login state suggests any usage context.

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