yapi_search_interfaces

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the search scope (current project), criteria (title/path/method), and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'search'. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or match semantics, which are meaningful gaps in an annotation-free context.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the usage hint. Every clause earns its place; there is zero redundant phrasing.

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?

Complete enough for a low-complexity 2-param tool: both parameters are schema-documented, the projectId/env-var fallback is consistent with the schema, and the description covers the search criteria. The main gap is the lack of any description of the return value, which matters since this tool exists to discover an interfaceId for downstream calls.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by specifying that the keyword searches across title, path, and method — clarifying which fields the keyword param actually matches, which the schema's generic '搜索关键字' does not convey.

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 (search), resource (interfaces in the current YApi project), and search dimensions (title, path, method). The qualifier '不知道 interfaceId 时先用这个' differentiates it from the sibling tools, all of which operate on a specific known interface/mock — making this the discovery entry point.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition: 'use this first when you don't know the interfaceId.' This clearly orients an agent toward the discovery workflow. It doesn't name specific alternatives to use once the ID is known, but the context is clear enough that exclusions are implicit.

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