yapi_list_interfaces

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does state that this is a read/list operation and discloses the credential resolution order (env / config / token arg), which is valuable. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, permission requirements, or error behavior on a bad URL or project id.

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?

Three short lines with the core action front-loaded and the two invocation modes grouped together. No filler, though the trailing 'Credentials via env / config / token arg' is terse to the point of being cryptic about precedence.

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 explained, and the auth/invocation story is covered. For a 7-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, though, the undefined filter parameters and absent pagination/scope notes leave meaningful gaps.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only explains url, project_id, base_url, and token; path, method, and keyword are never described, leaving the filter semantics ('optional filters' is vague) undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List interfaces under a YApi project', plus the parenthetical '(from list_menu)' tying it to a project-listing step. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like yapi_get_interface or yapi_export_catalog, and 'optional filters' is left unnamed.

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?

It does explain two invocation paths (a browser URL vs project_id + base_url) and how credentials are supplied, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to siblings such as yapi_get_project or yapi_get_interface, so routing still requires inference.

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