harness_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that results are 'ranked by relevance' and that the tool 'Accepts a Harness URL for scope', which explains scope extraction behavior. No contradiction with 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and distinguishing features (search, relevance, URL scope). No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and a complex search/scoping behavior, the description is too brief. It does not explain ranking algorithm, scope resolution (org/project extraction from URL), or the effect of parameters like compact and max_per_type. Incomplete for a search tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about searching across types and URL scope, but does not explain parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., what 'compact' does, default values). Minimal added value.

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 'Search across multiple Harness resource types' and 'Returns results ranked by relevance', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like harness_list (which likely lists specific types) and harness_get (single resource). The title 'Search Harness Resources' reinforces this.

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 implies usage for cross-resource search with relevance ranking, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., harness_list for listing specific types) or when not to use. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions.

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