yapi_get_project

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the specific fields returned (base path, environment, members). No contradictions with annotations exist, and it provides useful context about the operation's output scope.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and details. Every word carries meaning; there is no fluff or redundancy. This is an ideal length for a simple GET tool.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description covers everything an agent needs: the resource type and the key fields it can expect. No critical information is missing.

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 parameter 'id' already has a description ('项目 ID'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, when coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('获取' = get) and resource ('项目详情' = project details), and lists the exact information returned (base path, environment, members). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with interfaces/categories, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 makes the tool's purpose unambiguous: retrieve project-level details. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the specificity (base path, environment, members) implies usage when those are needed, and sibling tools are clearly for different resources (interfaces, categories). No exclusions are given, but the context is clear enough.

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