yapi-get-categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' categories, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is (e.g., list structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese ('获取项目的接口分类列表') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with zero wasted content.

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 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication needs, output format) and usage guidelines. While the schema covers the parameter, the overall context for an agent to effectively use this tool is insufficient, especially compared to siblings that might offer overlapping functionality.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage (the single parameter 'projectId' is documented as '项目ID'), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics, such as where to find the projectId or valid ranges, but the schema adequately covers the basics.

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 '获取项目的接口分类列表' clearly states the action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('接口分类列表' meaning 'interface category list'), specifying it retrieves categories for a project. It distinguishes from siblings like 'yapi-get-project' (gets project details) and 'yapi-get-interfaces' (gets interfaces), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'yapi-get-interfaces-by-category', which might overlap in context. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid projectId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'yapi-get-interfaces-by-category' (which might fetch interfaces filtered by category). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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