bilibili_user_relation_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the tool returns count-type statistics — no auth requirements, error behavior, or whether counts require a login session.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately listing the returned fields. No filler, though it is terse enough to leave gaps.

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 simple read-only stat tool with no output schema, the description should at least enumerate the full set of returned metrics and clarify the return shape; '等关系统计' leaves the output unspecified. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 single parameter vmid has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains that vmid identifies the target user. With a required parameter undocumented in both schema and description, the agent must infer its meaning from the name.

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 (读取) and resource (用户关系统计), and enumerates what is returned (关注数、粉丝数). It is distinguishable from bilibili_user_followings, though the description does not explicitly draw that contrast.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to prefer this over bilibili_user_info (full profile) or bilibili_user_followings (list of followed users). The '[用户]' tag hints at user context but is not explained.

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