yapi_get_interface_menu

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and gives a hint about the return structure ('with category structure'), but it does not elaborate on the exact format, whether project_id is optional, or any potential errors.

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 sentence of seven words, front-loading the key action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not rich. It would benefit from clarifying what an 'interface menu' is and how it relates to the sibling list tools, but it allows an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 has full coverage for the single parameter (project_id) with a straightforward description. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameter, but none is needed as the schema is explicit.

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 it gets an interface menu list and specifies the category structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools like yapi_get_interface (single interface) and yapi_get_categories (raw categories).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as yapi_list_category_interfaces or yapi_get_categories. The description gives no context about appropriate scenarios.

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