harness_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds behavioral value by noting results are 'ranked by relevance' and that a 'Harness URL for scope' is accepted, providing useful context beyond the annotations. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but the openWorldHint and output schema partially cover that.

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 three concise sentences, each adding relevant information: the search scope, the relevance ranking, and URL scoping. No redundant wording or fluff; it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 schema covers all 8 parameters (100% coverage) and an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on core behavior. It explains the search feature and key scoping mechanism, but it does not enumerate the many resource types (left to the schema enum). It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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 adds little beyond the schema—it mentions URL acceptance and multiple resource types, but the schema already details the url and resource_types parameters. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'multiple Harness resource types,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like harness_list and harness_get. It also mentions relevance ranking and URL-based scoping, which further clarifies its unique role.

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 usage for finding resources across multiple types ('Search across multiple Harness resource types') but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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