Manage DeepSeek Harness sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so exceptionally well. It explicitly promises no directory creation, no implicit session start/resume, cached-view behavior before startup, empty array on no match, full view including native error rows, and the runtime requirement for resume/close. These are concrete behavioral guarantees beyond the basic action names.

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 dense yet efficient: two sentences with no filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by edge-case guarantees that an agent needs. Every clause adds value, even though the sentence is information-dense rather than broken into separate sections.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return behavior, side-effect guarantees, filter semantics, and prerequisites remarkably well. The main gap is not addressing the overlapping dsh_status sibling tool or providing more detail on new_session beyond the schema, which leaves slight ambiguity in a sibling-rich context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by explaining how filter parameters affect results—only existing running/cached rows are filtered, no match yields an empty array, and omitting filters returns the full view. It also clarifies the runtime prerequisite for resume/close. These additions exceed the schema's brief descriptions, though the schema already covers the enum and mutual exclusion.

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 opens with a specific verb set and resource: 查看/恢复/关闭 DSH 会话 (view/resume/close DSH sessions), and distinguishes list/status from resume/close actions. It is clear what the tool operates on, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling dsh_status tool, which could overlap with the status action.

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 gives concrete usage context: list/status are always answerable and safe, while resume/close require dsh to be running. It also warns that filtering never implicitly starts or resumes sessions and returns empty arrays on no match he. This is clear context, though it does not name sibling alternatives such as dsh_start or dsh_status, so explicit when-not-to-use routing is missing.

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