show_bilibili_trending_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format (ToolResult with plain-text fallback plus a structured PrefabApp card) and notes that the card renders the feed without the agent reading raw JSON. It does not cover errors, rate limits, or authentication, but these are less critical for a read-only trending tool.

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 main action is front-loaded and the Return Format/Examples sections are useful. However, the RATIONALE block contains internal jargon ('per fleet SOTA') that does not directly help an agent select or invoke the tool, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential ground: what it does, how it returns results, and a concrete invocation example. It could add sibling routing and more detail about limit semantics, but an agent can call it correctly with the information provided.

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 example 'show_bilibili_trending_card(limit=5)' illustrates how to pass the optional parameter, but the description does not explicitly explain that 'limit' controls the number of trending items returned. The schema provides the type and default, and the parameter is self-explanatory, so the gap is minor.

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 function: show current Bilibili trending content as a rich in-chat card. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like bilibili_search or show_bilibili_status_card, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool: when a user asks what is trending on Bilibili right now. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for other intents, such as search or account status.

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