执行鸿蒙开发能力

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that operations may be long-running, failure messages usually contain solution hints, and internally it performs parameter validation before calling devecocli or the skill marketplace API. However, it does not address side effects, permissions, or whether operations are reversible/ cancellable.

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 sentences, each earning its place: prerequisite, execution mechanism, and operational caveats. Information is front-loaded and there is no fluff.

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 generic executor with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: prerequisite, ID sourcing, internal flow, time expectations, and failure behavior. It lacks explicit output/return format, but that is reasonable given the absence of an output schema and the tool's generic nature.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (capability_id with examples, args with key-name guidance). The description adds minor context about sourcing capability IDs from list/search tools and the existence of parameter validation, but these are incremental over the rich schema.

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 identifies the tool as an executor of HarmonyOS development capabilities by ID, with a specific mechanism (parameter validation → devecocli or skill marketplace API). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that capability IDs come from capability_search or capability_list, positioning itself as the execution counterpart.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: load the SKILL first, obtain capability IDs via capability_search or capability_list, and warns about long-running build/run operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternative tools beyond the ID-acquisition ones.

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