harness_describe

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

Despite readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds a crucial behavioral fact: 'No API call — returns local metadata only.' This goes beyond the annotation's safety profile and clarifies that no remote data is fetched, which is valuable for agent expectations.

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 concise sentences: purpose, non-API behavior, and usage recommendation. All are informative and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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?

The description is complete for a local metadata tool: it covers purpose, behavior, and usage with other tools. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. Given the simplicity of the tool and rich schema, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully described in the schema (toolset filter, search_term keyword search, resource_type details). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the high-level purpose, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 what the tool does: describe available Harness resource types, their operations, and fields. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting 'No API call — returns local metadata only' and positioning it as a discovery tool for use with other harness_ tools.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this to discover what resource_types you can use with other harness_ tools.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls slightly 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.