bilibili_get_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the basic functional behavior (get details) and parameter constraints, but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling. It is adequate but minimal.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately provides the critical usage constraint. Every sentence is valuable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, parameter constraints, and format. It does not explain the output structure, but the output schema handles that. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by the name and context, but could be more explicit.

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% (low), so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: bvid and work_url, the constraint that at least one is required, and the format of work_url (bilibili.com/video/BVxxx or b23.tv short links). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies types and nullability.

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's purpose: '获取 B 站视频详情' (get Bilibili video details). It specifies the resource (single video) and distinguishes from sibling tools like bilibili_get_user_works or bilibili_search_articles by focusing on a single video identified by bvid or URL.

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 explicit usage guidelines: at least one of bvid or work_url must be provided, and it explains the supported formats for work_url. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bilibili_get_user_works for multiple videos), though the context of sibling tools partially implies the distinction.

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