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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a safe/idempotent operation. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 Chinese sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what '接口详情' (interface details) includes in the response, doesn't mention error handling for invalid IDs, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should do more to compensate.

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 the single parameter 'interfaceId' documented as '接口ID' (interface ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema provides complete parameter documentation.

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 action ('获取' - get/retrieve) and resource ('接口详情' - interface details) with the specific condition '根据接口ID' (based on interface ID). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'yapi-get-interface-by-url' by specifying ID-based lookup rather than URL-based lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 implies usage context through '根据接口ID' (based on interface ID), suggesting this tool should be used when you have an interface ID rather than a URL. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the sibling 'yapi-get-interface-by-url' or provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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

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 what the tool does (get interface details from a URL) but doesn't describe behavioral traits like error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what '接口详情' (interface details) includes in the response. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 and front-loaded: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a concrete example. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks crucial context: what '接口详情' (interface details) returns, error conditions, or how it differs from the sibling tool. For a tool with minimal structured data, the description should provide more operational context to be fully helpful.

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%, with the parameter 'url' fully documented in the schema. The description adds an example URL format ('http://localhost:40001/project/11/interface/api/23'), which provides context but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline score of 3 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: '根据YApi URL获取接口详情' (Get interface details based on YApi URL). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '接口详情' (interface details), but doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'yapi-get-interface' which likely has a different parameter approach. The description provides a concrete example of the URL format, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 mentions the sibling tool 'yapi-get-interface' in the context signals, but the description itself doesn't explain the difference (e.g., this tool uses a URL parameter while the sibling might use ID-based parameters). There are no usage prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons stated.

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