yapi_get_interface_list

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read via "获取", but says nothing about pagination behavior, default/max limits, permissions, or return shape – thin transparency for a paginated listing 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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and filter dimensions front-loaded and no redundant filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 tool with 4 optional pagination/filter params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits pagination semantics, default ordering, and – critically – how it differs from the near-identical sibling yapi_list_interfaces_by_cat.

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%, so the schema already documents page, catid, limit, and project_id (页码/分类ID/每页数量/项目ID). The description's mention of project and category filtering maps to catid/project_id but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ("获取接口列表" / get interface list) and adds the filterable dimensions (project, category), which is clear enough for an agent to understand intent. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling yapi_list_interfaces_by_cat, whose name suggests nearly identical category-scoped listing behavior.

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 phrase "根据条件获取接口列表" implies usage only implicitly; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The overlapping sibling yapi_list_interfaces_by_cat makes a routing rule genuinely necessary here, and none is provided.

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