yuque_hello

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the endpoint and that this is a health/token check, which implies a safe read with no mutation, but it does not state what the response indicates (valid/invalid, error shape) or any rate-limit/auth caveats beyond token validity.

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?

Front-loaded one-liner that leads with the purpose, plus a short endpoint note. The '详见 references/api/user_api.md' pointer is minor and arguably useful, but slightly dilutes an otherwise tight statement.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema health check, the description covers purpose, semantics, and the underlying endpoint. The only gap is what a caller should expect back from a failing vs. passing check.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty input schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Health check — verify Yuque API token validity', with the underlying endpoint GET /hello given as supporting detail. Its purpose is unambiguous and distinct from the data-oriented siblings like yuque_get_user or yuque_search, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 phrase 'verify Yuque API token validity' implies usage (call to check credentials before/while troubleshooting), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. For a unique-purpose health-check tool, implicit context is roughly adequate.

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