build_harness_status

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return content (steps done, current step, checkpoints). However, it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor any auth or rate-limit considerations, so the behavioral profile is only partially covered.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the returned-content summary is front-loaded ahead of the usage cue. Every phrase earns its place.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the expected return shape and the trigger condition, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It could be stronger by confirming the read-only nature and whether a build job must already exist.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 resource (the current build job) and enumerates the returned content (steps done, current step, checkpoints), which separates it from siblings like build_harness_next or build_harness_submit. It is a clear status read rather than a tautology of the name, though the phrasing 'where the current build job stands' is slightly indirect.

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 explicit invocation guidance: 'Call this first in a new chat.' That is a concrete when-to-use condition. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., discover or readiness) or stating when not to call it, so it lands below the top band.

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