List Harnesses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it lists harness specs but does not provide additional behavioral traits such as whether it returns all items if no tag filter is given, pagination, or any other constraints. Since annotations cover the core safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, concise and front-loaded with the verb 'List'. However, it uses domain-specific jargon ('natural-language harness specs') which may reduce clarity for some agents.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but does not explain what the list contains (e.g., names, IDs) or whether the output is paginated. It fulfills basic needs but leaves gaps.

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 input schema already describes the 'tag' parameter with examples. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is suitable.

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 lists 'natural-language harness specs' and mentions their purposes (portable workflow control, proof-backed verification, GTM execution). It uses a specific verb and resource, though 'harness specs' could be better defined. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_harness' implicitly.

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 or when not to use it. There is no mention of typical use cases or comparisons to sibling tools like 'run_harness'.

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