harness_code

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

The description fully discloses what the tool does (returns an engineering scaffold), how to use it ('absorb internally, do not echo'), and why (catches common LLM coding failure modes). No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and meets it comprehensively.

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?

The description is lengthy but well-structured: starting with imperative call directive, followed by triggers, behavioral explanation, exclusions, and usage tips. Each sentence contributes essential information without redundancy. Could be slightly shorter, but no unnecessary fluff.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description fully explains its purpose, usage, internal behavior, and output format (failure pattern, procedure, correct-pattern example, verification step). It covers when and how to call, enabling an agent to use it correctly without additional context.

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 100% with one parameter 'query' described as '1-2 sentence framing.' The description adds value by clarifying specificity, providing a good example and a bad example, and emphasizing not to mention the tool. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and minLength.

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's purpose: 'Call BEFORE generating, refactoring, reviewing, or debugging code.' It provides specific trigger queries and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on code actions, not deception, memory, or reasoning.

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-call and when-not-to-call instructions are given, including a list of triggers and exclusions like 'pure code reading' or 'simple syntax questions.' The phrase 'When in doubt on non-trivial code work: call it' adds decision guidance.

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