harness.run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no side effects, no permission or trust requirements, no indication that the run may be destructive. The only behavioral hint is that steps are composed of semantic selectors, which is thin for an execution 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?

It is a single short clause with no filler, so it is not bloated. But the brevity is under-specification rather than economy; the one sentence it contains does not front-load enough information to be useful.

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 tool with 5 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, a single clause is far from complete. Critical details — what the run returns, what dry_run previews, what trust boundary allow_untrusted crosses — are entirely absent.

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 0% across 5 parameters, including a nested object ('params') and two security-relevant booleans ('dry_run', 'allow_untrusted'). The description adds no meaning for any parameter — not even which package/tool identifiers are expected or what allow_untrusted unlocks — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a verb ('运行') and resource ('harness 工具'), which is clearer than the bare name, and the parenthetical hints that steps are semantic selectors. However, it never explains what a harness tool actually is or how it differs functionally from siblings like harness.list or harness.check_versions, leaving the agent to infer 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus harness.list or harness.check_versions, no prerequisites (e.g. must the harness be listed/version-checked first?), and no exclusions. The agent gets a verb but no selection context.

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