bilibili_auth_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by explaining that online=true triggers an actual browser connection and by stating that login credentials are never returned, a genuine security-relevant disclosure. It omits whether the browser check can be slow, fail, or require an open session.

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?

Two compact clauses, the local-first behavior front-loaded, the opt-in browser branch second, and the credential caveat last. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema and the description only says what is NOT returned (credentials) rather than what is returned, so an agent cannot anticipate the shape of the status result. For a status-check tool whose entire purpose is producing that result, this is a noticeable gap, though the call semantics themselves are fully covered.

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%, so the description carries the parameter burden. It explains the online=true path but leaves the default/false path ('本地偏好' only) implicit, and gives no hint about what the local preference check reads or where it comes from. Useful but only half the semantics of the single flag.

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 pairs a concrete action (checking local preferences, then verifying the live account against the browser) with the auth-status subject implied by the tool name, and it is clearly unlike any of the content-oriented siblings. It stops short of stating outright that it returns a logged-in/not-logged-in result, so the resource is inferred rather than named.

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 conditional 'online=true 时连接浏览器验证实际账号' tells the agent exactly when to pay the cost of a live browser check versus staying local, which is the only real branching decision for this tool. There are no competing auth siblings to route to, so the absence of an explicit alternative is minor.

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