Detect MCP harnesses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "filesystem checks, no writes" plus a speed expectation. It also discloses the concrete output field shape, which annotations cannot express; it does not cover failure modes (e.g., permission-denied config dirs), keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then tightly labeled sections (When/Avoid/Speed/Output/Batch-safe). Every fragment carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (harness_detect: detected[] and harnesses[] with fields), lists the domain of detection, and states cost, side effects, and idempotency. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No wasted or misleading parameter claims are present.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ("Detect which MCP-client harnesses ... have a config on this machine") and enumerates the exact harnesses it targets. An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like project_install_self or project_health.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ("before installing venira") and an explicit avoid condition that names the alternative action ("skip straight to project_install_self"). Routing is fully determined without inference.

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