harness_reverse

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It discloses key behaviors: creates harness from existing code, marks assumptions with questions, and prioritizes code over docs. Could mention file creation side effects, but overall sufficient.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second gives guidelines. No redundancy, every word earns its place. Front-loaded with action.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter tips. Lacks explicit mention of output/return value (no output schema, but description could state what the tool produces). For a medium-complexity tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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% (baseline 3). Description adds value by explaining when to pass 'analysis' ('Optional richer analysis... to use instead of a shallow scan') and clarifies 'hint' as 'Extra context... anything the code cannot contain', going beyond schema descriptions.

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 specific verbs 'Create /harness and reverse-assemble' and resource 'harness' with qualifier 'from EXISTING code'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like harness_propose_structure (proposing new structure) and harness_verify (checking).

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 use context: 'Code is the evidence', when to pass 'analysis', and what happens with inferred intent. It implies when not to use (when no existing code), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives, though siblings suggest them.

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