bilibili_check

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states what the tool does. It does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, whether network calls are made, what side effects might occur, or what the output structure looks like despite having an output schema.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 lack of annotations and sparse schema (0% description coverage), the description leaves significant gaps: no usage guidelines, no behavioral disclosures, and no parameter explanation. The output schema is present but not described in text, so the agent lacks crucial operational context for a complete understanding.

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 schema provides only a parameter named 'account' with type string and no description; the description also does not explicitly define the parameter. However, the tool's description hints that 'account' refers to the Bilibili cookie, giving slight semantic context, but it does not clarify expected format or examples.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a Bilibili account cookie is valid'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that check other platforms or upload content. It uniquely identifies the Bilibili platform and the validity-check intent.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kuaishou_check or douyin_check. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection beyond the tool's name.

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