DeepSeek Harness bridge status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explicitly stating the tool is read-only, will not implicitly start dsh, and explaining the state semantics (running/state distinguishes stopped/starting/running/error; ok=true means healthy, false when not started). It also discloses what additional information is preserved (binary, version, active session count, session capabilities, config source). This is strong behavioral transparency for a status tool.

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 sentence that packs in the key behavioral facts: read-only, no implicit start, state values, ok semantics, and preserved fields. It's front-loaded with the most important information (read-only, no start). It's slightly dense with the list of preserved fields, but each element earns its place by helping the agent understand what the status output contains.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the state machine (stopped/starting/running/error), the health flag semantics, and what data is preserved. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact output format or structure, but for a status tool this is acceptable given the description already covers the key semantics.

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, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does explain what the tool reports (state, ok flag, binary, version, session count, capabilities, config source), which gives the agent a sense of what the output will contain. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description adds value by describing the output semantics.

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 identifies this as a read-only status tool for the DeepSeek Harness bridge, and explicitly states it will not implicitly start dsh. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dsh_start and dsh_run by emphasizing the read-only nature and the no-start guarantee. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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 for when to use this tool: when you need status information without side effects. The explicit statement '不会隐式启动 dsh' (will not implicitly start dsh) serves as a usage guideline, telling the agent this is safe to call for status checks. It doesn't explicitly say 'use dsh_start instead when you need to start it,' but the contrast with siblings is implied through the read-only framing.

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