yapi_get_category_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via 获取 but never states whether this requires auth/permissions, whether the result is a flat list or a hierarchy (the word 'menu' hints at nesting), or how large/unpaginated the response is.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but it wastes no words.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say something about the returned structure (flat list vs. nested menu) and its relationship to yapi_get_interface_cat_list; neither is covered.

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 100% with a single project_id parameter fully documented as 项目 ID, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only that project_id scopes the lookup; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 获取 (get) all 接口分类 (interface categories) for a YAPI project. This is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling yapi_get_interface_cat_list, leaving the agent unable to tell the two apart without opening both schemas.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given the sibling yapi_get_interface_cat_list and yapi_add_category, an explicit routing statement would have been valuable; nothing is provided.

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