bilibili_explore

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does so by stating the return format, indicating that all operations share a single video-ish list output, and providing invocation examples. It does not discuss auth or side effects, but for a read-only trending/discovery tool this is a minor gap.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise rationale, return format, and examples. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters, and the description supplies the return format plus representative examples for all three operations. An agent has enough context to select the right operation and correctly interpret the response without additional unwritten requirements.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters at 100%, including the operation enum with detailed semantics, rid region mappings, and limit bounds. The description adds useful examples but no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: discover trending content on Bilibili via three list surfaces. It specifically names popular feed, rankings, and hot keywords, and the operation enum reinforces the scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like show_bilibili_trending_card or bilibili_search, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 and examples make it clear how to invoke each operation (trending, rank, hot_search), and the rationale frames this as the discovery surface. However, it never directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives such as bilibili_search or show_bilibili_trending_card, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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