yuque-mcp-plus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure burden. It states nothing about read/write status, return values, pagination behavior, or side effects, merely identifying the alias relationship.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place by conveying the alias relationship and the rationale ('compatibility'), appropriate for a tool that genuinely is just an alias.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It identifies the alias but omits what the tool actually returns, what authentication is required, or how pagination behaves (despite limit/offset parameters).

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (repoId, repoNamespace, limit, offset all documented), establishing baseline 3. The description adds no parameter context beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies this as an alias of yuque_get_docs but fails to specify what operation is actually performed (listing/retrieving documents). It relies on the reader inferring functionality from the sibling tool name rather than stating it directly.

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?

Explicitly names the sibling tool (yuque_get_docs) and explains the specific condition for using this variant: 'for compatibility with official naming.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its functional equivalent.

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