Get YAPI Interface Detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the tool as a read operation returning detailed interface data. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits, though for a simple get operation this is acceptable.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and included components. It is concise with no extraneous information, earning its place without waste.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential functionality. It explains what the tool returns and is mostly self-contained. However, it does not address differences from sibling tool yapi_get_by_url, which might retrieve similar details.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'interface_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds contextual value by specifying what details are returned, but does not provide additional parameter-level semantics 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 complete details of a single API interface, listing specific components like request parameters and response schema. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as yapi_list_interfaces (listing) and yapi_get_by_url (by URL) by focusing on a single interface by ID.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yapi_get_by_url or yapi_list_interfaces. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the description.

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