bilibili_list_favorite_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that results are scoped to the current logged-in account and that IDs are exact/usable downstream, which is genuine context, but it says nothing about authentication failure behavior or whether followed/collected folders are excluded.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and the account scope front-loaded and the downstream purpose trailing. 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?

With no output schema, the description does its part by stating that precise folder IDs are returned, which is the key return-value fact an agent needs. For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is nearly complete; only the logged-out/empty-list edge cases are unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline is 4; however, the description also adds no parameter-level information because none exists. It sits just below the zero-parameter baseline because it neither confirms the absence of filters nor explains that no pagination or filtering options are available.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('列出...收藏夹') and narrows the scope to folders created by the currently logged-in account, which separates it from the saving siblings. It does not explicitly name bilibili_save_videos as its counterpart, so differentiation is implied through the stated downstream use rather than spelled out.

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?

'提供精确 ID，供保存工具使用' establishes the workflow context: call this before a save operation to obtain the folder identifier. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there are no explicit exclusions or notes about what to do when the list is empty or the account is not authenticated.

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