List Harness attachments

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It adds an origin detail ('restored from durable relay state') but does not explain what restoration means for the returned data or what behaviors to expect. There is 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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It loses a point because the 'Host' vs 'Harness' terminology inconsistency and the obscure 'durable relay state' phrase reduce clarity despite the brevity.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description is close to sufficient, but it leaves the relationship between 'services', 'Host attachments', and 'durable relay state' unexplained. Without an output schema or return-value details, an agent may still be unsure what exactly will be listed.

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 the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are no parameters to describe, and none are needed.

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 names a specific action and resource ('List Host attachments'), but the resource is ambiguous and inconsistent with the tool name ('list_services') and title ('List Harness attachments'). It is not a tautology, but the meaning of 'Host attachments restored from durable relay state' is vague for an agent deciding what this tool returns.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_workspaces or list_capabilities. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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