bilibili_user_videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful bits not in annotations: the '[用户]' marker signals a logged-in credential is required, and '自动附加WBI签名' says signing is handled internally. It says nothing about pagination limits, error cases, or what an invalid/private mid returns.

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 stated up front and no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that brevity shades into under-specification rather than crispness.

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 five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a list-returning tool, the description should at least characterize the response (video entries, paging behavior) and the role of mid. Neither is present, so an agent must guess at call semantics beyond the required field.

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% across 5 parameters, and the description only indirectly implies that 'mid' identifies the UP主. It gives no meaning for pn/ps (paging), tid (partition filter) or order (pubdate/click/stow), leaving the agent to infer everything from bare field names and constraints.

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+resource: read a UP主's uploaded-video list, which is distinguishable from siblings like bilibili_user_feed or bilibili_video_related. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 purpose implies the scenario (enumerating one creator's uploads), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of alternatives such as bilibili_search or bilibili_user_feed, and no prerequisites stated beyond the implicit auth marker.

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