yapi_get_categories

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

The description contradicts the input schema: it states the project_id parameter can be omitted (using a default from token), but the schema marks it as required. This inconsistency undermines agent trust and reliability. No annotations are provided, so the description fails to disclose behavioral traits accurately.

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, brief sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and contents. No unnecessary words; it is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is generally sufficient. However, the contradiction between description and input schema makes it incomplete and potentially confusing for the agent. Additionally, it does not explain the return format beyond a vague 'summary'.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds misleading information about the parameter being optional when it is required per schema. This contradiction reduces the semantic value below baseline.

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 '获取' (get) and the resource '接口分类列表' (interface category list) for a specified project, specifying what is returned (category ID, name, and interface summary). It distinguishes from sibling tools like yapi_get_api_details (gets API details) and yapi_list_projects (lists projects).

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 for retrieving categories of a project, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks guidance on when not to use it.

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