list_harnesses

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 auth scope ('owned by the authenticated user') and classification ('legacy', 'standalone'), but does not mention return format, pagination, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. While 'List' implies reading, more transparency would be expected given no annotations.

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 concise sentences that immediately start with the action verb 'List' and deliver all necessary information without waste. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope (legacy, standalone, owner). It does not describe return values, but the tool's simplicity makes this a minor gap. Overall, it is adequately complete for its complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. With 0 params, the baseline is 4. The description adds no param-specific information because there are none to describe.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'harnesses' and adds qualifiers 'legacy', 'owned by the authenticated user', and 'standalone harnesses not associated with a project.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects and get_harness.

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 context: it lists legacy standalone harnesses owned by the user, which implies it is not for project-associated harnesses. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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