run_harness

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: async job runner, checkpoints, verification, and proof-backed outcomes. This goes beyond the bare annotation by explaining how the execution works.

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, front-loaded sentence of 14 words that efficiently captures the key action and distinguishing features without any redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the execution mechanism (async, checkpoints, verification, proof-backed) but omits details about return values, error handling, or post-execution behavior. With no output schema, more clarification on outcomes would improve completeness.

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?

All three parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add extra parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for 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 verb 'Execute', the resource 'natural-language harness', and adds specific behavioral details about async execution, checkpoints, verification, and proof-backed outcomes. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_harnesses'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The only hint is the resource type, but no explicit usage context.

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