yapi_get_interface_cat_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a complete menu tree containing all categories and interfaces, which is useful scope information, but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, performance characteristics for large projects, or return format. Too thin for a read-heavy tree retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no wasted language. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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 complexity of returning a full tree of categories and interfaces, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the shape of the returned tree, whether interfaces are included in full detail or as references, or how this differs from sibling retrieval tools, leaving the agent underspecified for a nontrivial retrieval tool.

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% (the single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as '项目 ID'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 is a Chinese-language title-like phrase ('Retrieve the project's complete interface menu tree (including all categories and interfaces)') that essentially restates the tool name without adding a specific verb+resource framing an English-speaking agent can parse. The tool name already conveys 'get interface cat list', so the description is largely tautological and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like yapi_get_category_menu or yapi_get_interface_list.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yapi_get_category_menu or yapi_list_interfaces_by_cat, which appear to overlap heavily in returning category/interface structures. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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