harness_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds essentially no behavior beyond its scope list: it doesn't say the tool reports rather than fixes problems, doesn't mention that results can vary between runs (consistent with idempotentHint=false), and doesn't surface the host-receipt verification caveat that matters for interpreting output.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler wording. It is efficient, though the comma-separated scope list is slightly flat rather than structured around what the agent gets back.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only profile, so return values and safety need not be restated. But for a five-parameter diagnostic tool with conditional paths (receipts only verify discovered/connected/protocol; authority_file is HTTP-only), the description is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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 80%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing about repo, workspace_root, host_receipts, or the stdio-vs-HTTP authority_file distinction, leaving the one undocumented parameter (cwd) unexplained as well.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and enumerates the resource domains: issueops installation, shared skills, docs, and Codex/Claude integration status. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as docs_index, skill_manifest, or loop_status, so an agent may hesitate between them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The agent must infer that this is a diagnostic/health-check call rather than, say, a docs reader, and nothing tells it when to prefer docs_index or skill_manifest instead.

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