get_yapi_interface_detail

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

Without annotations, the description adds a token scope constraint and indicates the included content (request/response schema). However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential error cases, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

A single sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the core action and additional token scope constraint. It 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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description must clarify parameter usage and return values. It only mentions request/response schema and token scope, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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?

No parameters are explained in the description, and the schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage). Parameter names like projectId and includeMock are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantics or required/optional context, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 retrieves YApi interface detail including request/response schema. The verb 'get' and resource 'interface detail' are specific and distinguish it from the sibling search tool.

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 explicit usage guidance is provided. The description implies usage when a specific interface ID is known and full schema details are needed, but it does not contrast with search_yapi_interfaces or state prerequisites.

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