yapi-get-project

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. The description only states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 ('获取 YAPI 项目信息') that is front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more structured by including key details, but it earns high marks for brevity.

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 (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., project details, metadata) or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with no output schema, the description should compensate by describing return values, but it fails to do so.

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 100% description coverage (the 'projectId' parameter is documented as '项目ID' - project ID), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what a project ID is, where to find it, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 YAPI 项目信息' (Get YAPI project information) states a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('YAPI 项目信息' - YAPI project information), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'yapi-get-project-list' which likely retrieves multiple projects versus this tool's single-project focus. The description is vague about what specific project information is retrieved.

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 when to use 'yapi-get-project' (for single project details) versus 'yapi-get-project-list' (for listing projects) or other sibling tools. There's no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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