搜索 AGC API 目录

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: the catalog size, bilingual keyword support, and that space-separated keywords mean simultaneous matching. It also reinforces openWorldHint=false by specifying the search is within the built-in catalog. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the first establishes scope and keyword behavior, the second provides the follow-up workflow. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place, despite the minor 'Connect Connect' typo.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it: it explains what the catalog contains, keyword semantics, and the downstream workflow. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the mention of finding endpoints and then checking params via agc_get_api_doc makes this sufficiently clear.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning for the query parameter (Chinese or English keywords, space-separated terms match simultaneously), which goes beyond the schema's examples. It does not cover group/platform beyond what the schema already provides, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('search by keyword') against a specific resource ('built-in AppGallery Connect API catalog'), with concrete scope (~200 endpoints, 450 docs). It clearly differentiates from agc_get_api_doc by saying the next step after finding an endpoint is to use that tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools like harmonyos_search_docs.

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 gives a clear workflow context: search the catalog first, then use agc_get_api_doc for parameters, then invoke via dedicated tools or agc_request. It implies when this tool is appropriate but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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