generate_harness

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral detail: the refusal to write into a non-empty out_dir, that force overwrites only the harness's own files (not the whole directory), and the runtime profile (seconds offline vs minutes on a local model). This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three tight sentences: the core action and output location lead, then the speed/flag tradeoffs, then the safety constraint last. Every clause carries information and nothing repeats the name or schema.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the risky behaviors an agent must know before calling. The only real gap is the undocumented max_revisions parameter, so it is near-complete rather than fully so.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for four of six parameters: offline, review, force, and out_dir all get meaning beyond their names. spec and max_revisions are left unexplained, which keeps it below a 5 despite the strong overall compensation.

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 verb (generate) plus resource (ready-to-run chaos test harness) and names the input (an OpenAPI spec) and output location (out_dir). That is enough to separate it from siblings like inspect_spec or activate_chaos, though it never names or contrasts an alternative 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?

It gives concrete operational guidance for the flags: offline=true for a fast deterministic run, review=false to roughly halve an LLM run, and force=true to proceed when out_dir is non-empty. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other five siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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