harness.check_versions

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the comparison logic and the downstream meaning of a mismatch ('stale, needs re-distillation'), which is real behavioral context. However it does not state read-only nature, return shape, or whether wildcard semantics differ per target.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action (read versionName) and then the comparison and its consequence. Every clause earns its place, though the internal jargon ('重蒸馏') assumes domain knowledge.

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 no-param, no-output-schema tool, the description explains the logic but not the actual return value (is it a list of stale targets, a boolean, a per-app report?). Some essential detail is left implicit.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule parameter semantics start at 4. The description references versionRange concepts but there are no arguments to clarify, so no further credit is available.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: reads versionName of each harness target app and compares against a versionRange. The comparison logic and the notion of a 'stale' result are concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling harness.list or harness.run, keeping it just short of 5.

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 implies when the tool is useful (detecting targets whose installed version falls outside the required range and thus need re-distillation), but it never states when to call it versus harness.list or harness.run, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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