yapi_run_auto_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('run automated tests') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify what happens during execution (e.g., test results, logs, errors), whether it's a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool with zero 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 ('运行 YAPI 自动化测试') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, but it could be slightly more informative (e.g., adding context about test types). Overall, it's concise and well-structured, 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 the complexity of running automated tests (a potentially mutating or resource-intensive operation), no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., test results, status codes), behavioral traits, or usage context. For a tool with these characteristics, the description should provide more comprehensive information to aid the agent.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters (url, project, env_name). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 '运行 YAPI 自动化测试' (Run YAPI automated tests) states the verb ('run') and resource ('YAPI automated tests'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'YAPI automated tests' specifically entail (e.g., unit tests, integration tests, API tests) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'yapi_interface_list' or 'yapi_import_data', which handle different operations. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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 (e.g., needing a YAPI project setup), exclusions (e.g., not for manual testing), or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'yapi_interface_list' for listing interfaces instead of running tests). Usage is implied only by the tool name, with no explicit context or alternatives stated.

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