Open DeepSeek Harness

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

The annotations already indicate this is not read-only and operates in an open world, yet the description does not disclose what state change or external effect occurs when the page is opened. It adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action name, and there is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundant examples, or restatement of the schema. Every word contributes to identifying the target resource.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and annotations, this is minimally viable: it names the action, target, and precondition. Clear gaps remain—'Harness page', 'stable loopback', and 'attached' are domain terms not explained, and no sibling differentiation is provided.

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 input schema provides only the type and UUID format for serviceId, so the description's 'attached service' wording supplies minimal semantic meaning: the ID must refer to an attached service. It does not explain how to resolve the ID or what happens for invalid service IDs, but for a single self-named parameter this is marginally adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and a specific resource ('the stable loopback Harness page') scoped to an attached service, making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling open_run, but the service-vs-run target makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives such as open_run, start_service, or list_services. The phrase 'attached service' implies a precondition but does not state it as a requirement or explain how to confirm attachment.

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