harness_get

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral trait beyond annotations: the ability to pass a Harness URL that auto-extracts identifiers. It does not describe response/error behavior, but the output schema and annotations reduce the burden.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core operation and target, the second adds a valuable routing cue for failure analysis. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only annotations, the presence of an output schema, and a fully self-documenting input schema with high coverage, the description does not need to enumerate parameters. It supplies the missing routing guidance and the URL shortcut, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description's URL auto-extraction point is already present in the url parameter description, and it introduces no new parameter semantics beyond clarifying the get-by-ID entry path. The schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a Harness resource') with an explicit selection criterion ('by ID'), clearly distinguishing this from create/update/delete/list/search siblings. It also points to harness_diagnose for failure analysis, further separating concerns.

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 explicitly directs failure-analysis use cases to harness_diagnose, providing a valuable when-not-to-use signal. It does not fully enumerate alternatives like harness_list or harness_search, but 'by ID' conveys the intended fetch-a-single-resource use case well enough.

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