harness_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: polling mechanism, status meanings, and inclusion of output file paths or error messages. It also covers the fallback of listing all tasks.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, bullet points for statuses, and a closing note on missing task_id. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 single-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, how to poll, status interpretations, and listing fallback. No additional context is needed.

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 already describes task_id as optional and its omission lists all tasks. Description adds minimal extra context (the polling behavior and status outcomes), but since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; slight improvement justifies 4.

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 checks progress of a research task started by harness_research, distinguishing it from the sibling tools harness_research (starts tasks) and harness_search.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (after harness_research), polling frequency (every 30-60 seconds), and what to do based on status (keep polling, retrieve outputs, or handle error). Also mentions listing all tasks if no task_id.

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