Get YAPI Category Menu

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is read-only (returns data) and specifies output fields, but does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or side effects. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 consists of two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists the return values. No redundant information, front-loaded appropriately. Every word contributes.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality: it tells what the tool does, the required input, and what it returns. Missing details like response format or error handling are minor given the simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'project_id' described as 'The YAPI project ID'. The description only adds context ('for a project') that is already implied by the parameter name. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves a list of interface categories (folders) for a project, specifying the returned fields (IDs, names, descriptions). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'yapi_get_full_menu', which likely returns a similar or broader set of data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yapi_get_full_menu. There is no mention of prerequisites, preferred contexts, or situations where this tool is not appropriate.

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