harness_diagnose

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as URL auto-detection of resource type, defaulting to pipeline, and requiring completed execution for pipeline diagnosis.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is well-structured. The options paragraph is detailed but necessary for clarity. It is concise without being sparse, though it could slightly reduce wordiness.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description covers key use cases, defaults, and cross-references. It does not explain the output schema, but that is acceptable as the schema itself provides that info.

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%, providing baseline clarity. The description adds value by explaining URL auto-detection and detailing pipeline diagnostic options (e.g., return_download_url, step log behavior). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool diagnoses Harness resources, listing specific actions (analyze failures, test connectivity, check health, troubleshoot GitOps sync issues) and defaults to pipeline execution. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like harness_describe or harness_status, which offer similar insights.

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 implies when to use (diagnosis scenarios) but lacks explicit when-not or alternative recommendations. It says 'Call harness_describe for details' in the options context, but this is not a clear usage guideline for tool selection.

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