debug_harness_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it discloses the HARNESS_API_KEY environment-variable prerequisite and states the return form ('parsed, readable log lines'). For a read-only log tool this is solid disclosure; finer details like empty-result or error behavior are omitted but not critical.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the structure is logical: purpose, usage context, common examples, filter guidance, auth requirement. Each section earns its place, though the '[Arch Evaluate]' platform preface adds some noise and the examples are slightly repetitive against the parameter names.

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 7-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the key scenarios, filter behavior, and the auth prerequisite. It could go further on edge cases, but the moderate complexity and full schema coverage keep this at a strong 4.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by tying parameters to real usage ('stage_id="build_test", step_id="unit_tests"' for test failures) and giving a concrete filter regex example ('ECONNREFUSED|mongo|redis'). This exceeds the baseline.

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 operation (download and parse) on a specific resource (Harness CI execution logs) and clearly distinguishes its purpose from siblings: it's the only tool among debug_* and platform_* siblings focused on retrieving CI logs. The phrase 'get full build/test failure logs beyond what an eval-run status summary includes' sharpens the scope.

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?

Explains when to use it ('beyond what an eval-run status summary includes') and provides three concrete named scenarios mapping stage_id/step_id values to real failure types (test failures, Docker build errors, security scans). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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