yapi_get_interface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the optional `full=true` behavior that returns raw YApi data instead of the standard subset, which is a meaningful behavioral distinction beyond the schema. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core function and the optional modifier. There is zero redundancy, and every phrase earns its place. It is short while still being informative.

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 tool is a simple getter with a rich output schema (not needing return-type explanations), the description fully covers what an agent needs: the input (ID) and the two modes (standard vs full). No prerequisites, side effects, or hidden behaviors are left undisclosed, and annotations cover the read-only guarantee.

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%, and both parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description essentially restates what the schema says (ID for lookup, full for raw data) without adding syntax, formatting, or edge-case details. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('interface') and enumerates exactly what is returned (method, path, description, input/output parameters). It also mentions the optional full data flag, making it clear this is a targeted retrieval tool. The '根据接口 ID' clause distinguishes it from list/search siblings by requiring a specific ID.

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 implies usage when a specific interface ID is already known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like yapi_list_interfaces or yapi_search_interface. No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list. This is the weakest area.

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