brain_harness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds real behavioral context — summarize regenerates digest notes into a shared pool, and unchanged harnesses cost nothing — but omits whether the shared pool write is durable/reversible, whether it needs elevated permissions, and what stats returns beyond the schema's 'table'.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, and the dual purpose is front-loaded. Mildly hurt by jargon ('harness', 'auto-summary note') that assumes context the agent may not have.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both modes and the cost behavior of the summarize path. It leaves the summarize side-effect and return shape under-specified, but nothing critical is missing for invocation.

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 name, force, and action are all documented in the schema, including the enum meaning. The description only loosely echoes these ('refresh each one's auto-summary note' maps to summarize) and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific resource (harness memory hub) and two concrete operations: per-AI-tool memory stats and refreshing each harness's auto-summary note into the shared memory pool. It implies a distinction from the sibling brain_stats (which is presumably global) without naming it explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the two enumerated operations, and 'Unchanged harnesses cost nothing' hints at when summarize is cheap or skippable. However, it never states when to pick this over brain_stats or brain_search, nor any prerequisite for the summarize action.

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