yapi_search_interface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the read-only and non-cacheable nature. The description adds specific behavioral details beyond annotations: it searches across title, path, and HTTP method, and is case-insensitive. This provides the agent with meaningful search semantics that annotations do not convey, without contradiction.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes all necessary scope and behavior (search criteria and case-insensitivity). There is no redundancy or filler; every clause contributes value.

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 search tool with two required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what is searched, how, and the case-insensitivity. The output schema presumably details return structure, so the description need not elaborate. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes both parameters with type and examples (e.g., keyword: '活动详情或 /order/list'). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides; it neither enhances nor repeats parameter details. Given the high schema coverage, 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 clearly states the action (search), the resource (YApi interfaces within a project), and the criteria (by title, path, or HTTP method). It also notes case-insensitivity, distinguishing it from listing tools like yapi_list_interfaces that simply enumerate interfaces. The verb-resource-criteria combination is specific and unambiguous.

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: use this when you need to find an interface by keyword rather than listing all interfaces. It gives concrete example keywords ('活动详情' or '/order/list') that suggest appropriate search inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when you already have an interface ID) or mention alternatives. The context is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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