bilibili_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It helpfully discloses the return envelope (success, data.help, data.tools, message) and provides invocation examples, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, static, or whether invalid topics produce errors. That leaves some behavior to inference.

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 tightly structured: one clear purpose sentence, a terse return format block, and two concise examples. There is no filler, and the central purpose is front-loaded before the technical details.

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 simple help tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete: it provides the purpose, return structure, and examples. It could optionally list all valid topics, but the schema already supplies representative examples, so nothing critical is missing.

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 documents the optional 'topic' parameter with a default and examples, and schema coverage is 100%. The description's examples like topic='transcript' reinforce usage but add little semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('how to use the bilibili-mcp server'), making the tool's meta-role obvious. It implicitly distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which perform bilibili domain operations rather than server help.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for explaining how to use the bilibili-mcp server, and the examples show how to invoke it. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with this help purpose, so context is sufficient.

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