Open a Harness run

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

It adds an observable external behavior beyond the structured hints: a browser session is opened in the OS default browser. It also communicates that this is user-visible, not a background/API-only action, and gives an explicit guardrail for when it should be invoked.

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 uses two short sentences with no filler: one sentence states the action and the other states the when-condition. Every clause contributes to correct tool invocation.

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 simple one-parameter, side-effect tool, this is nearly complete: the agent knows the behavior, the trigger condition, and the schema supplies the required runId. It misses only the parameter-level explanation, which prevents a perfect score.

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 0%, and the description does not explain that the required runId is the run whose Harness Web page should be opened. Although the parameter name and schema format communicate part of the meaning, the description itself adds no semantic value for the one parameter.

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 precise behavior: opening a native Harness Web session in the operating system default browser. It distinguishes this from run execution, status, or service tools by naming the exact launch mechanism and target.

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 sets an explicit trigger condition: only call when the user explicitly asks to open or show the Harness page. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the gate is narrow enough for correct selection.

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