yapi_list_interfaces_by_cat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation lists all interfaces under a category and supports pagination, which is the core read behavior, but omits auth/permissions, error behavior, and return format. Minimal but adequate for a simple read tool.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though perhaps too sparse, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem.

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 paginated list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys the essential operation. However, without an output schema it could state what the list items contain or the ordering, and it lacks sibling guidance.

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 all three parameters (catid, page, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the baseline.

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 (list) and resource (interfaces) scoped to a category, and mentions pagination. It does not differentiate from siblings like yapi_get_interface_list or yapi_get_interface_cat_list, so 4 rather than 5.

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 on when to use this versus yapi_get_interface_list or other list tools; no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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