yapi_get_project

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read. It says nothing about authentication/token requirements, how url vs base_url vs project_id resolution works, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical field list is compact and informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but a four-parameter tool with entirely undocumented parameters and no annotations leaves an agent unsure how to target a project or authenticate. The description is underspecified for this level of schema complexity.

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?

All four parameters (url, token, base_url, project_id) have 0% schema description coverage and are all optional with null defaults, which raises a real question of how the target project is identified. The description lists output fields instead of explaining any parameter's role, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get YApi project metadata') and even enumerates returned fields (name, basepath, desc), which separates it from retrieval siblings like yapi_get_config and yapi_get_interface. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus yapi_get_config, yapi_get_project's natural alternative, nor any prerequisites. The only implicit cue is that it returns project-level rather than interface-level data.

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