harness_folder_triage

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'read-only' to indicate non-destructive intent, but does not discuss side effects of writing artifacts, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The description is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 sentence with no wordiness. It is concise but at the expense of completeness. The structure is clean, but the brevity reduces its usefulness.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 2 required, no schema descriptions) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too brief to provide adequate context. It does not explain return values, parameter roles, or how this tool fits into the larger workflow, despite an output schema existing.

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 explain parameter meanings. The description provides no information about the 9 parameters (case_name, input_root, staging_root, etc.), leaving the agent to guess what each parameter does without any added semantic value.

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 runs read-only folder triage and writes forensic-copilot-compatible artifacts, specifying the verb 'run' and the resource 'folder triage'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'triage_inventory' or 'run_case_db_path_string_triage', which may have overlapping purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to choose 'harness_folder_triage' over 'run_case_db_path_string_triage' or 'triage_inventory'. There are no explicit exclusions or context indicators.

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