Discover recent Harness runs

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/no-destruction profile, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: cursor semantics (cursors bind filters and pin the newest key, so newer runs are excluded), and the consistency caveat that status changes between pages are best-effort rather than an immutable snapshot. That is exactly the kind of pagination/consistency disclosure an agent needs and cannot get from 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the read scope and ordering come first, then filter/page semantics, then the routing sentence. Every sentence conveys a distinct behavioral fact with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description covers what remains: ordering, content omitted, filter exactness, pagination/consistency caveats, and alternatives for detail. An agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret page-to-page drift.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only partly delivers: it explains cursor binding and workspace comparison semantics ('recorded absolute path without filesystem resolution or case folding') and that 'optional filters are exact.' It adds nothing specific for limit, status, serviceId, or sessionId, so half the parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Read compact recent runs') plus ordering ('newest first by startedAt and runId') and the explicit exclusions (no prompts, assistant text, raw errors or history). It routes detail-seeking to get_run/get_run_summary, but never differentiates itself from the very similar sibling list_runs, leaving one ambiguity.

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?

Clear usage context: this is the lightweight discovery/listing tool, and the description names get_run and get_run_summary for detail. The 'compact ... without prompts, assistant text, raw errors or history' phrasing implies when this is preferable over a full fetch, but no explicit exclusion vs. list_runs or search tools is stated.

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