Get Hara runtime

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a non-destructive read operation. The description adds transparency by enumerating the specific data returned (host, build, sandbox profile, limits, availability), which is helpful context but does not go beyond the annotation's safety indication.

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 a single, concise sentence packed with specific technical terms (execution host, runtime build, sandbox profile, limits, availability). There is no redundancy or fluff; every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and a simple getter role, the description sufficiently conveys what is returned. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the return value, and no output schema is provided, so some ambiguity remains. Still, the core purpose is clear.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so coverage is 100% by default. The description does not mention any parameters (as none exist), but it also does not add any extra context about how the tool selects the runtime, which could be relevant. Since schema coverage is full, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return') and specifies the resource (Hara runtime information) with distinct attributes (execution host, runtime build, sandbox profile, limits, availability). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hara_eval and hara_call, which likely perform evaluations or calls.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (hara_eval, hara_call, hara_check). It does not state that this should be called before evaluating or calling, nor does it mention any alternatives. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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