harness_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, what permissions are needed, or if it has side effects. The description is too minimal for safe invocation.

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 sentence, but it is somewhat informal and starts with a colon. It conveys information without waste, though it could be more structured.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the output format or scope. It lists some components but does not fully characterize what the tool returns, leaving the agent guessing for comprehensive use.

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%, and the parameter description in schema is clear ('Always pass it explicitly'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable for high coverage but does not enhance understanding.

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 lists what the harness holds but does not specify a clear verb like 'get' or 'read'. It vaguely indicates a query operation, but the purpose is not sharp. Among siblings, it stands out by mentioning 'entry counts, design rules, pending changes, open questions', providing some differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like harness_list_pending (which might list pending changes) or harness_get_spec. No explicit use cases or exclusions are mentioned.

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