search_yapi_interfaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the token scope is project-level, which is a useful behavioral hint, but it does not mention return format, pagination, or confirm read-only behavior. Since 'search' implies read-only, this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds only the necessary token scope note. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too brief to cover parameter meanings, output behavior, or selection guidance versus the sibling. This is a significant gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It clarifies 'keyword' as natural language and implies project scoping via projectId/projectUrl, but it does not explain 'limit', 'method', or 'pathHint'. This leaves the majority of parameters semantically under-defined.

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 a specific action (search) on a specific resource (YApi interfaces) with a natural language keyword and project scope. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_yapi_interface_detail, which presumably retrieves a single interface's details.

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 searching within a project via natural language, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus get_yapi_interface_detail or any exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a full 5.

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