yapi_interface_get_cat_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but fails to describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, if there are rate limits, or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context, making it insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('url' and 'project') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb '获取' (get) and resource '所有接口分类' (all interface categories), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'yapi_interface_list_menu', which appears to serve a similar listing function, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'yapi_interface_list_menu' or other sibling tools. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving usage ambiguous.

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