Search ArkUIBuilder widgets

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: the result format ("the call to write in build() and its required parameters") and the special no-argument overview mode. Pagination and result-count behavior are left to the schema's limit field.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, then result format, then the empty-query tip. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 read-only search tool with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the definition covers sources, result shape, and the no-arg path. With no output schema, a brief note on result volume or how filtering composes would have made it complete.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented with their matching semantics and allowed platform values. The description only adds the zero-argument case, which is not a per-parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search ready-made HarmonyOS ArkUI components") and even names the two underlying catalogs it searches. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_widget or add_widget, but the search-vs-retrieve-vs-add split is inferable.

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?

Gives a concrete usage mode: "Call with no arguments for an overview of platforms and categories," which tells the agent how to bootstrap discovery before filtering. It stops short of naming when to prefer get_widget or add_widget instead.

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