run_harness

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

The annotations already set destructiveHint to true, indicating destructive behavior. The description adds context about async execution, checkpoints, verification, and proof-backed outcomes, which provides some behavioral insight but does not disclose specific side effects, authorization requirements, or what gets destroyed. This is acceptable but not thorough.

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 that efficiently lists key features of the tool. It is not overly long, but the information is packed in a way that could be front-loaded for quicker scanning. Overall, it is appropriately sized without wasted words.

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 has three parameters (one required), nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits details about output format, parameter validation, or how the async execution is handled. It is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 each parameter has a description. The overall description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the harness parameter. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance it further.

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 that the tool executes a natural-language harness via an async job runner with checkpoints, verification, and proof-backed outcomes. It specifies the verb 'Execute' and the resource 'harness', making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'run' sibling tools like run_autoresearch or run_self_distill, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context-specific usage. Given the large number of sibling tools, explicit guidelines would be beneficial.

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