yapi_list_interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. Beyond that, the description only restates the filtering capability already visible in the schema parameters. It does not disclose any side effects, limits, or behavioral nuances such as response ordering, pagination semantics, or potential performance considerations. With annotations absorbing the safety disclosure, the description adds almost no new behavioral 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key capabilities. No filler, no redundancy, and the core function is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only paginated list tool, the description combined with a full schema and an output schema covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The description implies the project scope via '项目下', and pagination/filter parameters are well-documented in the schema. No critical information is missing for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by status or tag, which aligns with the 'status' and 'tag' parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For pagination (page/limit) and projectId, the schema already provides adequate detail. The description does not compensate for any gaps, but none exist.

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 a specific verb ('分页获取' = paginated fetch), a specific resource ('项目下的接口列表' = interface list under project), and mentions filtering by status or tag. This distinguishes it from tools like yapi_get_interface (single) and yapi_list_categories (categories), though it does not explicitly name siblings to differentiate. The project-level scope is clear and distinct from category-level listings.

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 establishes a clear context: this is for paginated listing of interfaces under a project, with optional status/tag filters. However, it does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yapi_list_category_interfaces or yapi_search_interface. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned, leaving some inference to the agent.

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