harness_schema

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: bundled vs live-fetched schema sources, the requirement for scope/org_id/project_id on live entities, and the automatic placeholder identifier behavior. The precedence behavior is also disclosed. This gives an agent an accurate model of how the tool behaves.

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 dense but well organized, moving from the core purpose to usage modes to precedence to the available schema list. Almost every sentence earns its place. The final 'Available schemas' list duplicates the resource_type enum, which is minor redundancy, but the description remains efficient and scannable.

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 tool with 8 parameters, multiple source backends, and several operation modes, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameter combinations, precedence, scope constraints, and the distinction between bundled and live schemas. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and nothing critical is left ambiguous.

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?

Although the schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds substantial semantic value beyond the schema. It explains how path, example, and example_search interact, when scope/org_id/project_id are required, and how identifier behaves for create-time vs update-time lookups. This transforms a list of parameters into an actionable decision procedure.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch Harness YAML schema or examples for a resource type.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the create/update/delete/get/search siblings by focusing solely on schema and example retrieval. The supported resource types and operation modes are enumerated.

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 concrete usage guidance: use without path for a summary, use with path to drill in, use with example for named snippets, and use with example_search for keyword exploration. It also states the precedence order example > example_search > path > summary. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like harness_get or harness_describe, so it stops short of a 5.

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