yuque_web_get_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: cookie-based auth, no token rate limiting, no membership requirement, supported content formats, and the underlying endpoint. It omits error/edge behavior and pagination, but the auth and rate-limit disclosure is substantive.

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 with the core purpose, then layered context (formats, comparison, auth, endpoint). Dense but mostly value-bearing; the trailing Chinese doc reference ('详见 references/api/doc_api.md') is slightly awkward but points to further detail.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by quantifying the return ('54 fields including abilities, joinToken'), plus documents auth and rate-limit traits. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though return-field specifics remain only summarized.

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 100%, so id, book_id, and raw are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description only echoes book_id in the endpoint template and adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the 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 ('Get full document detail with body/content') and directly contrasts itself with the sibling yuque_get_doc ('Returns richer fields than v2 get_doc'), so an agent can pick between the two web/v2 variants without opening either schema.

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?

Gives selection-relevant context: 'No membership required, no Token rate limiting', which implies when this cookie-based variant is preferable to the Token-based get_doc. However, it never explicitly states when-not-to-use it or names yuque_get_doc as the alternative route, so the guidance is clear but not exclusionary.

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