harness_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction. The description adds that scope can be auto-extracted from a Harness URL and that results support filtering/pagination, which is useful but modest; it does not describe edge cases like per-resource page-size limits (present only in the schema) or response shape. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core action ('List Harness resources') before the URL auto-extraction note. Every sentence contributes; no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameter detail lives in the schema.

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 large-surface list tool (11 params, ~150 resource types, nested params), the description alone is minimal. However, the input schema provides rich per-parameter guidance and an output schema exists, so nothing critical about return format or parameter behavior is missing from the overall definition. The main gap is selection guidance relative to harness_search/harness_get, which keeps this from a 5.

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 documents all 11 parameters and carries most semantic weight. The description's filtering/pagination/URL statements echo the url, filters, page, and size parameters without adding new meaning, 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource family ('Harness resources') and names two core behaviors (filtering, pagination). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like harness_get (single fetch) and harness_search by the 'list' scope, though it does not explicitly name those distinctions.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing appears in the description. It states capabilities (filtering, pagination, URL auto-extraction) but never tells an agent to prefer this over harness_search or harness_get, nor excludes cases where it should not be used. The only exclusions/alternatives live inside parameter descriptions (e.g., call harness_describe), not in the tool description.

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