harvest.expert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs a query and returns HarvestItem[], which is useful, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential rate-limit behavior, or any side effects. The token parameters hint at authentication but are not described in the description.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the return type. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 conveys the essential operation, data sources, and return type, which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. However, it omits usage guidance relative to siblings and behavioral details such as rate limits or read-only guarantees, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents expert, gh_token, and hf_token adequately.

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 action ('Run'), the resource ('one of the 12 experts'), and the targets ('Hugging Face + GitHub'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's role, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like harvest.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?

The phrase 'using its curated queries' implies this tool is for expert-driven searches rather than general search, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over harvest.search or the other siblings. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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