yapi_list_mock_cases

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. '列出' (list) implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose output format, pagination, the meaning of advanced mock expectations, or any side effects. It provides only the most basic behavioral signal.

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 clear sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action, though the brevity leaves little room for guidance.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not specify return values, how projectId and interfaceId relate, or any expected behavior such as filtering. Sibling tools make the domain clearer, but the description alone is insufficient for confident use.

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 compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention interfaceId or projectId, their purpose, or which is required. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no semantic detail is added 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?

The description uses a specific verb '列出' (list) and identifies the resource '接口的高级 Mock 期望' (advanced mock expectations of an interface), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling update/get/save/delete operations. The purpose is immediately understandable without needing to inspect the 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 description gives no context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for viewing mocks rather than creating or updating them, nor does it name sibling tools or conditions for selection.

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