harness_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context: the tool returns a live overview and can auto-extract org/project from a URL. No contradictions with 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 tool's purpose and deliverables; the second adds a usage hint and practical use case. No wasted words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 annotations, 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's role as a health overview. It could optionally mention the output structure, but that is handled by the output schema. The description is complete for its context.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds value by explaining the URL parameter's auto-extraction behavior and the override semantics for org_id/project_id, beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 with additional insight justifies a 4.

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 'Get' and resource 'live project health overview', detailing exactly what is returned (failed executions, running executions, deployment activity). It distinguishes from siblings like harness_get or harness_list by focusing on a health overview, and provides an ideal first question for context.

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 states the ideal use case ('what's happening in my project right now?'), implying this is the go-to for quick status checks. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternatives among siblings, but the context signals and sibling names offer implicit contrast.

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