yapi-get-interfaces-by-category

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 describes a read operation (获取/get) but doesn't specify whether it's paginated, the format of the returned list, error conditions, or any rate limits. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a filtered list operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list structure, fields), pagination, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('分类ID/category ID'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond implying the parameter is used for filtering, which is already clear from the schema. With 0 parameters needing extra explanation, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't detract but also doesn't add value.

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 '获取指定分类下的接口列表' clearly states the action (获取/get) and resource (接口列表/interface list) with a scope (指定分类下/under specified category), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'yapi-get-interfaces' (which presumably gets all interfaces without category filtering), leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.

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 like 'yapi-get-interfaces' or 'yapi-get-interface'. It mentions the category scope but doesn't explicitly state that this is for filtered listing by category versus other listing methods, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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