harness_propose_structure

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

The description reveals that results land in pending changes for review, indicating the tool does not directly apply changes. However, with no annotations, it could further specify whether the operation is additive only, whether it can overwrite, or any required permissions.

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 two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the basic function and outcome. However, it lacks parameter semantics and usage context relative to siblings, which reduces completeness for an AI agent deciding between tools.

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?

The description does not explain the 'instruction' parameter, which is undocumented in the schema. The 'project_path' parameter is described in the schema but not in the description. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing instruction details, such as format or examples.

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 clearly states the tool generates or extends project structure (modules, entities, screens, flows) from an instruction, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from siblings like harness_propose_change (which modifies specific files) and harness_get_spec (retrieves specs).

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as harness_propose_change or harness_configure. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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