获取 YApi 接口列表

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the environment variable fallback and the 'complete list' scope, but does not disclose response format, pagination, authentication, or side effects. For a read-only list tool the risk is low, but the description remains under-specified.

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 compact sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and a key operational detail without any wasted words.

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 list-with-optional-filter tool, the description covers what it returns, the project scope, and the fallback behavior. It lacks response structure details, but that is acceptable given no output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema coverage, so the description compensates by noting projectId is optional and that YAPI_PROJECT_ID is used as a fallback. This adds useful meaning, but it does not elaborate on the parameter's type or source beyond the schema's exclusiveMinimum hint.

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 tool fetches the complete interface list for a specified YApi project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from search/detail siblings by emphasizing completeness, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named yapi_list_interfaces.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need the full interface list for a project. It also clarifies the behavior when projectId is omitted, falling back to YAPI_PROJECT_ID, which guides invocation. It does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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