yapi_interface_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('获取接口列表') without describing what the list contains (e.g., interface names, IDs, metadata), whether it's paginated (implied by page/limit params but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase ('获取接口列表'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a simple list operation, this brevity is appropriate, though it may sacrifice clarity. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., list format, fields), pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not stated), or how parameters interact (e.g., url overriding project). With no output schema and minimal description, an agent would struggle to use this effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters (url, project, catid, page, limit) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '获取接口列表' (Get interface list) states the basic action and resource but is vague about scope and context. It doesn't specify what kind of interfaces (YAPI API interfaces), what project context, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'yapi_interface_get' (single interface) or 'yapi_interface_list_menu' (menu listing). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'yapi_interface_get' (for single interface details) or 'yapi_interface_list_menu' (for menu structure), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or project context. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameters.

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