bilibili_video_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds that this is a broad metadata read spanning several sub-resources, which is context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits or failure modes for invalid/private videos.

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 bracketed-tag plus one clause, with the resource type front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting useful detail, but nothing present is wasteful.

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 one-parameter read-only metadata tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description's field inventory (title, intro, uploader, aid, cid, parts, stats) effectively serves as the return-value contract. Nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter (bvid) at 0% schema description coverage; the schema gives only a regex. The description never clarifies what bvid is or that the BV-id format is required, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap, though the parameter is at least self-evident from its 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?

The description gives a specific verb-plus-resource (读取视频) and enumerates the fields returned (title, intro, uploader, aid, cid, parts, stats), so the agent knows exactly what this fetches. It partially blurs with siblings such as bilibili_video_stat and bilibili_video_pages by listing 统计 and 分P among its outputs, but the 'one call returns everything' framing is still distinguishable.

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 statement of when to prefer this over bilibili_video_stat, bilibili_video_pages or bilibili_search, and no prerequisites noted. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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