bilibili_video_stat

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

注解已经声明了只读、幂等和开放世界，因此安全概况已清楚，描述没有与之矛盾。额外的“从当前详情接口提取stat”暗示这些计数来自详情端点，可能反映缓存或时间点数据，这是有用的上下文，但没有提及刷新行为、认证需求或哪些字段可能缺失。

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?

一句话，前置了资源标签和获取内容的列表，没有填充内容。只有轻微的冗余：“stat”和列出的计数名称说的是同一件事。

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?

一个简单只读单参数工具，安全概况已充分注解，因此描述需求适中。它仍然缺少必需的 bvid 标识符语义，也没有说明返回的 stat 对象包含哪些内容，不过缺少输出 schema 使得这一点影响较小。

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 描述覆盖率为 0%，并且 schema 只作为约束（没有描述）暴露 bvid 的 BV 格式模式。描述完全没有说明该参数，因此调用者不读 schema 就不知道它需要 BV ID，也不知道该格式。

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?

明确动词加资源：从详情接口读取视频的播放、弹幕、评论、收藏、投币与点赞计数。清楚表明这是统计子集，从而与 bilibili_video_info 区分开，不过它从未明确指出后者，只是暗示了范围上的差异。

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?

范围（仅 stat 计数）暗示当你只需要互动指标而不是完整视频元数据时使用它，但没有明确说明何时选择它而不是 bilibili_video_info，也没有要求或排除项。

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