harness_status

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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds useful detail about the live nature of the data and the specific categories covered. It also explains the URL auto-extraction behavior, which goes beyond the schema and 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The headline purpose comes first, followed by the key input shortcut and a concrete usage example. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The attributes fully describe the tool's purpose, usage context, key behavioral trait (URL auto-extraction), and input semantics. With an output schema present and safety annotations covering side effects, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds the useful context that a URL can auto-extract org and project, but it does not need to repeat parameter details. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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-resource combination ('Get a live project health overview') and enumerates exactly what it returns: failed executions, running executions, and deployment activity. This clearly distinguishes it from generic search/list/get siblings like harness_list and harness_get.

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 gives explicit context for when to use it: 'Ideal first question: what's happening in my project right now?' This is clear and actionable, though it does not spell out exclusions or alternatives beyond implicitly being the first-stop overview tool.

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