Run Harness

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

Description adds behavioral details beyond the destructiveHint annotation: async execution, checkpoints, verification, and proof-backed outcomes. This informs the agent about the tool's complexity and safety profile.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no superfluous information. Efficient and clear.

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?

While the description provides key behavioral context, it omits return values (no output schema) and potential error states. Given the tool's complexity (async, checkpoints), more completeness would help.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add further meaning to parameters like 'inputs' or 'jobId', but does not need to beyond schema due to high coverage.

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 executes a natural-language harness via an async job runner. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from siblings like 'list_harnesses' or other execution-focused tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., run_autoresearch, plan_* tools). Lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where the harness execution is appropriate.

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