yuque_web_get_toc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the auth mechanism (cookie-based, no membership needed) and the response structure (flat array navigable via uuid/parent_uuid/child_uuid). It omits error behavior, pagination/size limits, and what the trimmed vs raw payload actually contains beyond the schema's hint.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: access mode, return shape, sibling comparison, then the raw endpoint. The trailing Chinese pointer to references/api/toc_api.md is useful but slightly abrupt, and the endpoint string is arguably redundant with the parameter docs; overall it earns its length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's note about the flat array and its navigation keys plus the endpoint and reference-doc pointer cover most of what an agent needs. Missing pagination, result size, or failure-mode detail keeps it from being fully complete for a TOC retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both book_id and raw are already documented in the schema; the description only restates book_id via the URL template. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get repo TOC tree') and immediately states the return shape (flat array keyed by uuid/parent_uuid/child_uuid). It also differentiates itself from the sibling yuque_get_toc by noting 'Same structure as v2 get_toc, but no membership required', so an agent can choose between them 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?

The phrase 'Cookie-based ... no membership required' gives a clear condition for choosing this over the v2/API-token sibling, and the endpoint line confirms the access path. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement or naming the alternative tool outright, so it is context rather than full routing guidance.

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