list_harvest_outputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the primary behavior—listing known harvest output folders and indicating manifest presence—but does not explain what 'known' means, how harvestRoot/redactionMode alter results, or whether any side effects exist. The behavior is understandable but incomplete for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds meaning: the action, the target resource, and the distinguishing output detail are all present.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: no parameter semantics, no mention of how redactionMode affects the listing, no indication of the return shape beyond the presence of a manifest, and no connection to sibling tools. This is insufficient for correct invocation in unfamiliar workflows.

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 0%, and the description does nott mention either parameter. It provides no meaning for harvestRoot or for the redactionMode enum values 'display' vs 'local-debug'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 a specific verb ('List') and names a concrete resource ('harvest output folders') while adding the key output detail that it reports whether each folder contains a harvest manifest. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_harvest_manifest, but the resource and stated output make the tool's role reasonably clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_harvest_manifest or harvest_keynote_pdf. There is no mention of prerequisites, workflow context, or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so the agent must infer usage largely from the tool name.

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