harness_describe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a valuable behavioral fact beyond them: 'No API call — returns local metadata only.' This tells the agent the operation is offline, instant, and requires no credentials or rate-limit consideration. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentences with zero waste: purpose is front-loaded first, the critical no-API-call differentiator second, and usage guidance third. Every sentence earns its place and the ordering supports quick agent parsing.

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 read-only discovery tool, the picture is nearly complete: annotations cover safety, output schema covers return values, the schema covers parameter semantics, and the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage context. The only notable gap is not clarifying how this tool relates to harness_schema, a sibling that could plausibly serve a similar discovery role.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters, including informative details like search_term 'matches type name, display name, toolset, description' and large enums for toolset and resource_type. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Describe available Harness resource types, their supported operations, and fields.' It also differentiates from siblings by declaring 'No API call — returns local metadata only,' which clearly separates it from harness_get, harness_list, and harness_search that fetch live platform data.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: 'Use this to discover what resource_types you can use with other harness_ tools.' The 'No API call' phrase further signals that live-data fetches belong elsewhere. However, it never names alternatives explicitly and does not delineate the boundary with the conceptually overlapping sibling harness_schema.

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