harness_diagnose

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with diagnostic purpose. Description adds auto-detection behavior and default resource type. No contradictions; additional transparency about options like visual parameters and step log fetching.

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?

Description is four sentences with dense, relevant information; front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the options detail could be slightly more compact. Overall 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?

Given 6 parameters including a nested options object and no output schema, description covers default behavior, auto-detection, and detailed options. References harness_describe for further info. Missing output explanation but acceptable for a diagnostic tool.

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%, but description adds substantial meaning beyond schema: explains auto-detection from url, defaults, and provides detailed documentation for the options object including all sub-keys (e.g., visual_width, visual_type, include_visual). This significantly enhances parameter 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?

Description clearly states it diagnoses Harness resources such as failures, connectivity, health, and GitOps sync issues. It explicitly defaults to pipeline execution diagnosis and distinguishes from sibling harness_describe by referencing it for details.

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?

Description outlines default behavior (pipeline execution) and auto-detection from URL. It also mentions calling harness_describe for details, providing an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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