Harness Atlas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains non-interchangeable groups, specifically that 'mates_with' is not a substitute, and mentions confidence levels and source URLs. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error conditions, but the lookup nature is clear.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main action and uses backticks for group names. It is dense but efficient; every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened by reducing some redundant phrasing around group explanations.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return categories, their meanings, and the attached confidence/source fields. This is sufficient for an agent to interpret results correctly and makes the tool's behavior well-rounded.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions part_number and manufacturer implicitly, while the schema's descriptions already cover normalization and aliases. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 cross-references wire-harness component part numbers against the XrefBase equivalence graph, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling find_manufacturer by focusing on equivalence relationships rather than manufacturer details.

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 clear context on how to interpret result groups and warns that groups are not interchangeable, which guides appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over the sibling find_manufacturer or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Returns listed manufacturer profiles (location, website, industries, capabilities)', which reveals the response shape and implies a read-only operation. It also mentions filtering behavior. While it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or cover error cases, the described behavior is sufficiently transparent for a search tool.

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: the first establishes the resource and action, the second elaborates on filters and return values. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core aspects: what it searches, what filters are available, and what is returned. It does not mention pagination or limit behavior, but the schema covers that. It also omits explicit discussion of the sibling tool for alternative paths, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 80%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain name (partial match), country, industry, and capability. The tool description merely lists 'country, industry served, process capability, or name' without adding new meaning. The 'limit' parameter is documented in the schema via default/max/min. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Search the Harness Atlas directory of wire-harness and cable-assembly manufacturers.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'find_alternative' by focusing on a directory search rather than alternative-finding. The scope is precise and actionable.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: searching the Harness Atlas directory with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with 'find_alternative', leaving a slight gap in exclusions or alternatives.

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