bilibili_video_related

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds nothing beyond that — no information on result size, pagination, or whether the recommendation list is personalized or requires auth.

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 phrase with zero waste and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though this brevity contributes to the missing context elsewhere.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify the parameter's role and roughly what comes back (list of videos, count, ordering). Neither is present, leaving the agent to guess at return shape.

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 the single `bvid` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The regex pattern hints at the BV-id format, but the description never explains that `bvid` identifies the seed video whose recommendations are returned.

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'/read) and resource ('关联推荐视频'/related recommended videos), which is enough to separate it from bilibili_video_info, bilibili_video_pages, or bilibili_video_tags. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the resource noun is distinctive.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this returns recommendations for a given video. There is no statement of when to prefer it over bilibili_video_info or bilibili_popular, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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