harness_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a live health overview, can include a visual dashboard, and auto-extracts identifiers from a URL. No contradictions, and it complements the annotations well.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core functionality and provides a practical usage suggestion. 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?

Given the 5 parameters, no output schema, and the presence of annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, key parameters (url, limit, include_visual), and usage context. However, it does not explain the structure of the returned health overview, which might be helpful for an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions the URL extraction functionality which is also stated in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get a live project health overview: recent failed executions, currently running executions, and recent deployment activity.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project health overview'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a quick health summary rather than individual resource operations.

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 with 'Ideal first question: what's happening in my project right now?' and explains how to use a Harness URL for auto-extraction. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for more detailed queries.

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