Check the connected existing Harness

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds that it queries live running Harness state rather than a proxy — genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields. It does not disclose failure behavior when no Harness is connected, which the title ('connected existing Harness') implies is a prerequisite.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The scope statement comes first and the differentiating clause second, which is the right front-loading for an agent scanning options.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of what is returned (health, version, task limits) carries the return-value burden, and it does so concisely. With zero parameters and full annotation coverage of the safety profile, nothing essential is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource set ('embedded Host health, version and task limits'), and explicitly contrasts itself with another diagnostic tool. The contrast target is named as 'proxy doctor' while the sibling list offers 'doctor'/'setup_doctor', a minor naming mismatch that slightly weakens the disambiguation.

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 phrase 'Unlike proxy doctor, this queries the running Harness' tells the agent when to pick this over the proxy-based alternative, which is clear routing context. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites (e.g., what happens if no Harness is connected).

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