环境健康检查

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is checked and notes that the optional device check is slow, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what happens on failure (e.g., missing devecocli), or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences and to the point. The first sentence is a prerequisite instruction rather than the core purpose, but it is still relevant. It is front-loaded with the SKILL loading requirement, which might be better placed elsewhere, but overall it is efficiently written with no filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description lists all the checks it performs. However, it does not explain the return format or what happens if the environment is not ready. While the context of first-use is given, the lack of output description is a gap given there is no output schema.

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 covers the single boolean parameter check_devices with a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds a slight context by mentioning '(可选)连接设备' but does not go beyond the schema's own description. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is correct.

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 states the tool checks the runtime environment (devecocli installation, docs library, HarmonyOS project, optional device connection). The verb '检查' (check) with the listed resources is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_* and capability_* which focus on documentation and capabilities. The title also reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly says to call this tool first on initial access to confirm the environment, and it also notes the prerequisite of loading the deveco-unified-mcp SKILL. This gives a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternative tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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