bilibili_video_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-field context (cid, title, duration) but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or error behavior; with annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every element (视频, 分P, cid, 标题, 时长) earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields is helpful and annotations cover safety. However, it omits any bvid guidance and any routing signal versus the many sibling video tools, leaving clear gaps.

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%, and the description never mentions the required bvid parameter. The schema does supply a pattern and length bounds, but the description does not explain what bvid means or where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb (读取) and resource (视频各分P) and names exactly what is returned: cid, title, and duration. That is clear enough to distinguish it from generic video-info tools in practice, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like bilibili_video_info or bilibili_video_stat.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this or bilibili_video_info when it needs video metadata, nor whether this tool is only meaningful for multi-part videos.

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