搜索 YApi 接口

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search uses YApi's built-in search API and matches names/paths, but it does not mention whether this is read-only, require authentication, or return paginated/summarized results. For a search operation, important behavioral context like result limits or scoping is missing.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and key behavioral detail (matching name and path). No fluff or repetitive content.

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, the description gives enough to understand the core function, but gaps remain: projectId is unexplained, there is no mention of output format or error behavior, and confusion with sibling search tools is unresolved. Without an output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 only 50%; the keyword parameter has a description, but projectId is undocumented. The tool description adds no new meaning for keyword—it essentially repeats the schema's description. It provides zero explanation of projectId's purpose or constraints, so parameters remain unclear for half the inputs.

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 searches YApi interfaces by keyword, matching interface names and paths. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes from list/detail siblings by focusing on keyword search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling yapi_search_interfaces, which may serve the same purpose.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need to find interfaces by keyword rather than listing all or fetching details. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the similar sibling yapi_search_interfaces, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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