dsh

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

The annotations already convey that this is not read-only, is not idempotent, is open-world, and may be destructive. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral details: it blocks until dsh settles, returns captured stdout, the last 4 KB of stderr, the exit code, and wall-clock time, and it cannot access the conversation context. These are meaningful additions that help an agent anticipate the tool's runtime behavior and output shape.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's primary action and command, followed by behavioral details and the key prompt constraint. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description does well by specifying exactly what is returned: stdout, last 4 KB of stderr, exit code, and wall-clock time. It also covers blocking behavior and the important limitation that dsh cannot see the conversation. A small gap is that it does not explicitly mention the timeout escalation behavior in the main description, though that is covered in the timeout parameter schema.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the prompt self-containment requirement but does not materially extend it beyond what the prompt parameter schema already states. This matches the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a prompt through your locally installed DeepSeek Harness CLI (`dsh --print`)'. It clearly identifies what the tool does and even names the underlying command. With no sibling tools to distinguish from, this is unambiguous and fully specific.

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 are no sibling tools, so no alternative comparison is needed, but the description gives clear operational context: the tool runs a self-contained prompt through a local CLI and blocks until completion. It also provides a crucial usage constraint: dsh cannot see the conversation, so the prompt must be fully self-contained. It stops short of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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