bilibili_get_user_works

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool accesses a '优质库' (quality library) but does not define that term, nor does it mention whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or subject to rate limits. Lacking these details, the transparency is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate side effects.

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?

The description is extremely concise—only two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes essential information. It could be slightly improved by structuring the parameter notes more clearly, but overall it is efficient and readable.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides only a vague summary ('视频列表'). It does not explain pagination behavior, the meaning of '优质库', or what data is included for each video. For a tool with five parameters and a nontrivial domain, the description leaves too many gaps for an agent to use it reliably without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the relationship between 'mid' and 'account_url' (at least one required) and lists the possible values for 'order'. However, it omits any explanation of 'page' and 'page_size', leaving those parameters semantically opaque for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a video list for a Bilibili UP master (creator). It includes the verb '获取' (get) and the resource '视频列表' (video list), which is distinct from sibling tools like bilibili_get_work (single work) or bilibili_get_account (account info). However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it is clear but not top-tier.

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 description provides concrete usage rules: at least one of 'mid' or 'account_url' is required, and it explains the valid values for 'order' (time, play, like). It does not, however, offer guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., when to use bilibili_get_work instead) or any context-dependent recommendations.

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