harness_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that a URL can be supplied to auto-extract identifiers, a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second points to an alternative for failure analysis. No redundant information.

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 output schema exists and all parameters are described in the schema, the description covers the tool's primary use. It lacks exhaustive details about every resource type, but that is not expected for a generic getter. The pointer to harness_diagnose rounds out context for failure scenarios.

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% with all parameters documented. The description's URL mention duplicates the schema's 'Harness UI URL — auto-extracts...' and adds no new parameter semantics. The open-ended params object is explained in the schema, so the description is not needed.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get a Harness resource by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'prefer harness_diagnose' for failure analysis, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with search/list. Overall, clear and specific.

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?

Explicitly names harness_diagnose as the alternative for failure analysis. The mention of URL auto-extraction implies usage when a URL or ID is available, providing practical context. It doesn't spell out exclusions for search/list, but the core guidance is present.

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