harness_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing what the return value tells the caller: current connection status and the active command surface. This is especially useful given no output schema is present.

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 two short sentences with no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional return-value detail is provided in the second sentence without padding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema and no siblings, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the action, the resource, and the nature of the returned information. Nothing essential 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 no parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate.

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 names a specific verb ('Check'), a clear resource ('bridge status'), and states exactly what the answer will contain: connection state and the map.* commands being served. It is unambiguous and fully distinguishes the tool from any potential alternative, even with no sibling tools present.

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 intended use is clear: call this tool when you need to know whether a kepler.gl demo page is connected to the bridge and what map.* commands are available. There are no sibling tools to contrast against, so explicit exclusions are not necessary; the context is sufficiently clear.

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