yapi_get_interface

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says what data is returned. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication or project membership is required, or what happens when interface_id is invalid or missing.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and its contents without padding. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter getter, though it could have used the space to add routing or behavioral detail.

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 read-only getter with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the shape of the returned data (request and response definitions). It stops short of error behavior, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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% for the single interface_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 (获取) and resource (YAPI 接口的详细信息) and enumerates what is returned (请求参数、响应数据). It does not, however, distinguish this detail-fetching tool from siblings like yapi_get_interface_list or yapi_get_interface_cat_list, so an agent must infer the difference from names alone.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling getters (yapi_get_interface_list, yapi_get_interface_cat_list, yapi_get_project) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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