harvis.dev

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements, return values (url, claimUrl, deployToken), privacy warnings, and update semantics. However, the claim that subdomain is optional conflicts with the schema's requirement, creating a minor transparency gap.

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 longer than ideal but well-structured, front-loading the primary action. Each sentence has a purpose, though some repetition with schema parameter descriptions could be trimmed.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers all return values and usage flows, including update behavior and user instructions. It lacks error case details and contains the subdomain contradiction, but overall is quite 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage. The description adds guidance about file paths and index.html, but it contradicts the schema by saying subdomain is optional when schema says deployToken requires subdomain. This inconsistency could mislead an agent.

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 publishes a static website to harvis.dev and returns a live public URL. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes the initial deploy from the update use case.

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?

Explicitly explains when to publish (no account needed) and when to update (pass deployToken on a later call). It also instructs to include index.html and pass all files, providing concrete usage context.

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