discover_harness_models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: whether discovery hits remote providers, how long it takes, whether it mutates cached state, or what happens on failure is unstated. The word 'waterfall' hints at a fallback chain but the layers and their consequences are never explained.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler and the scope constraint placed up front. It is efficient, though efficiency here reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with zero parameter documentation, no annotations, and an opaque 'three-layer waterfall' concept, this one-liner leaves an agent unable to predict cost, latency, side effects, or the role of force_refresh.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the harness parameter is optional ('one or all harnesses'), covering roughly one of two parameters, but force_refresh is never mentioned — including its default of true, which means every call refreshes unless the agent knows to override it.

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 verb-plus-resource ('model discovery' for 'harnesses') is identifiable, and the scope ('one or all harnesses') is stated. However, 'three-layer model discovery waterfall' is unexplained jargon, so an agent cannot tell what actually happens or what the result represents, and no sibling (list_harnesses, get_model_market) is distinguished.

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 call this versus list_harnesses, get_model_market, or preview_routing, which plausibly overlap in the model/harness domain. Nothing says when a discovery run is warranted or what condition should prompt a refresh.

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