harness_verify

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

Discloses that the harness is never redrawn and operation is on-demand, but with no annotations, critically fails to specify read-only behavior, return format, side effects, or auth requirements. A comparison tool should clarify whether it's safe to invoke repeatedly.

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, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with key constraint ('On demand only') and purpose. Perfectly concise.

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 single-parameter verification tool, the description adequately covers purpose and a key behavioral nuance. Given no output schema and no annotations, additional details on return values or error handling would improve completeness, but the tool's simplicity keeps the gap small.

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% with a clear description of project_path. Description adds no further parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the tool compares real code against harness and reports divergences. Specifies 'on demand only' and contrasts with 'harness is never redrawn from code', distinguishing it from sibling tools like harness_sync_design_system or harness_reverse.

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?

Implies usage for detecting drift ('safety net for when the agent drifted') but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or naming of alternative tools. The sibling list is extensive but not leveraged for guidance.

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