yapi_get_advanced_mock

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates a read operation plus the required credentials (YAPI_EMAIL/YAPI_PASSWORD or Cookie), which is useful. However, it does not describe error behavior, side effects, or what the returned script payload looks like.

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 a single focused sentence with the action and resource front-loaded, followed by a compact authentication note. It contains no wasted words, though it could have included more parameter context without becoming overly long.

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?

Given there is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter explanation, the description leaves too much to inference. It does not clarify the role of the optional projectId, how the result is returned, or how this tool differs from yapi_get_interface_mock.

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% and the description adds no parameter information at all. An agent cannot learn what 'interfaceId' or 'projectId' represent, which one identifies the advanced mock, or why 'interfaceId' is required and 'projectId' is optional.

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 uses a specific verb ('读取', meaning read/get) and names the resource ('高级 Mock 自定义脚本'), so an agent can tell this is a read operation for advanced mock scripts. It partially distinguishes itself from 'yapi_get_interface_mock' through the word 'advanced', but does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over related alternatives such as yapi_get_interface_mock or yapi_list_mock_cases. The only contextual note is the authentication requirement, which does not help an agent decide between sibling read tools.

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