build_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Build' implies a write operation, but there is no mention of whether it is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cleaning previous builds). The schema includes 'is_clean' but description does not address it.

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 short (4 words), which is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It fails to include necessary details that would fit in a concise but informative description.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any constraints.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for explaining all 8 parameters. It provides zero information about parameters like target, product, build_mode, etc., leaving the agent with no additional semantic value.

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 'Build HarmonyOS artifact' provides a verb (build) and a resource (HarmonyOS artifact), making the general purpose clear. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of artifact (e.g., HAP, HAR) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like run_app or install_app.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., need for a configured project), or when not to use it.

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