get_harness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (full BOM, connection data) and notes 'legacy' status, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is a read-only operation or describe any side effects. The phrase 'modify' in the usage line could mislead an agent into thinking the tool mutates data, when it actually just loads.

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 compact and efficiently front-loaded. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second sentence gives usage context. No filler or redundant information is present.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately communicates the return value by mentioning 'full BOM (hydrated parts) and connection data.' It gives enough context for an agent to select the tool and know what to expect, though it does not detail the exact response structure or revision handling beyond what the schema already covers.

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% for both parameters (harness_id and revision), so the schema already documents their meanings. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 loads a legacy harness with its full BOM (hydrated parts) and connection data. It uses a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('harness'), and the mention of 'full BOM' differentiates it from sibling tools like get_harness_summary.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this to inspect or modify an existing harness.' It gives a purpose but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. The distinction from get_harness_summary is implied but not stated, so it falls just short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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