yapi_get_interface_mock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly says 读取 (read), indicating a read-only operation with no side effects, and specifies what is returned: res_body and mock URL. It does not detail errors or auth requirements, but for a simple read tool the core behavior is 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 a single concise sentence, front-loads the main action and resource, and includes the clarifying parenthetical about res_body formats. Every part contributes useful information with no filler.

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 simple read tool, it covers the main return values (res_body and mock URL) and the normal-mock distinction. However, it omits any explanation of projectId, does not describe the response structure in the absence of an output schema, and gives no explicit guidance on selecting this over yapi_get_advanced_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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only indirectly clarifies interfaceId via '接口的', but projectId is never explained. The description focuses on output rather than parameter meaning, leaving one of the two parameters essentially undocumented.

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 the operation (读取/read), the target resource (接口的 res_body and mock URL), and the content type (普通 Mock 文档 / JSON Schema). The word '普通' helps distinguish it from the sibling yapi_get_advanced_mock, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for reading normal mock data, and the sibling yapi_get_advanced_mock suggests an alternative for advanced mocks, but it never explicitly says 'use this when you need normal mock data' or 'not for advanced mock'. There is no direct when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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