搜索 YApi 接口

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it uses YApi's built-in search API and matches name/path, adding useful behavioral context. But it omits return format, pagination, or read-only confirmation.

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?

One concise sentence front-loads the core action and tacks on specific search scope. Every phrase earns its place.

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 low-complexity search tool, the purpose and search scope are covered. However, without an output schema, projectId semantics, or usage guidance, there are notable gaps for an agent to invoke 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?

The description reiterates the keyword's meaning already in the schema but adds no new parameter semantics. The optional projectId parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 and specifies that it matches interface name and path. This differentiates it from list/detail siblings, though not from the sibling 'search_api'.

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 the tool is for keyword-based search by stating '根据关键字搜索', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer sibling tools like get_api_list or search_api.

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