yapi_interface_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves details and can parse URLs automatically, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks information on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('获取接口详情') and immediately follows with the key usage note about URL parsing. There is zero wasted text, and every word earns its place by clarifying functionality or usage.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (a read operation with 3 optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the what and how-to-use basics but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, response format, or error cases. For a tool without annotations or output schema, more context would be needed to fully guide an agent, but it's minimally adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (url, project, id) with their types and descriptions. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the URL parsing capability and implying parameter relationships (e.g., id can be omitted if url is provided), but doesn't provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose as '获取接口详情' (get interface details), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like yapi_interface_list (which lists interfaces) and yapi_interface_add (which creates interfaces). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with yapi_interface_up (update) or yapi_interface_save (save), leaving some ambiguity about its exact scope versus update operations.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to retrieve interface details, with the option to pass a YAPI interface page URL for automatic parameter parsing. It implies usage by stating '可直接传入 YAPI 接口页面 URL 自动解析参数' (can directly pass YAPI interface page URL to automatically parse parameters). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. yapi_interface_list for listing or yapi_interface_up for updates) or name alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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