yapi_create_category

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and simply states a create operation. It does not contradict annotations but also adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, permission requirements, or response details. The annotations already cover the basic safety profile, so a 3 is appropriate given the minimal additional disclosure.

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, compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is fully front-loaded and gets straight to the point, demonstrating excellent conciseness for a simple create operation.

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 create tool with a full input schema, required-field marking, and an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description is adequate. It does not explain return values, but the presence of an output schema covers that. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance, but that is already scored separately. Overall, the description is nearly complete for its simplicity.

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% — all three parameters (name, projectId, description) have individual descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'create' (创建) and the resource 'API category' (接口分类) within a project context. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like yapi_create_interface, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit comparisons to sibling tools. The only context is the inherent nature of the tool name, which implies category creation, but no directed usage advice is given.

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