Start DeepSeek Harness (dsh)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses idempotency, subprocess management for web mode, token-to-cookie handling, browser opening, URL safety warnings, and failure/retry behavior. This goes well beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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 but every clause adds value; it is front-loaded with the core action and idempotency. It would benefit from structured separation of the transport modes and return-value notes, but it is not padded or redundant.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description covers the important runtime context: return fields, absence of token in web_url, port ambiguity, browser behavior, and retry safety. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result correctly.

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 meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that open_browser only applies in web mode, defaults to true, and opens at most once per start. This gives the parameter operational meaning.

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 action ('显式启动/连接本机 DSH 并完成握手') and the resource (DSH), and adds the idempotency property. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like dsh_run or dsh_status, so it stops short of the 5-level sibling distinction.

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 clear context for two operational modes (transport=acp and transport=web) and explains the open_browser behavior in web mode. It does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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