Huawei App Gallery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only discloses what data is returned (field names). It omits error behaviors (what happens if app_id is invalid), authentication requirements, rate limits, and the optional environment variable fallback mentioned in the schema.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundancy or waste; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

While the tool is simple (2 parameters, flat schema), the absence of an output schema means the description should ideally detail the return structure or format. It partially compensates by listing returned fields, but leaves gaps regarding error responses and the optional nature of parameters.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description text itself adds no parameter-specific semantics (e.g., explaining the difference between formal vs. phased release types or when to omit app_id).

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('app metadata'), and helpfully enumerates the exact fields retrieved (name, description, category, content rating). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'update_app_info' by using a read verb, though it lacks explicit contrast.

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 'update_app_info' or 'query_compile_status', nor does it mention prerequisites or typical workflows (e.g., checking metadata before updating).

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