yapi_interface_list_menu

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 states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with 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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with two optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned menu structure looks like, how to handle the optional parameters in practice, or any dependencies. For a tool in a set with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective 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 100%, with both parameters ('url' and 'project') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it fetches a menu, which the schema already covers through parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '获取接口菜单（包含分类和接口列表）' clearly states the action (获取/get) and resource (接口菜单/interface menu), specifying it includes categories and interface lists. It distinguishes from siblings like 'yapi_interface_get' (gets a single interface) and 'yapi_interface_list' (likely lists interfaces without categories). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'yapi_interface_get_cat_menu', which might be similar, 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for navigation or overview), or exclusions. With siblings like 'yapi_interface_get_cat_menu' that might overlap, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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