harbor_artifact

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's added value is the return contents (tags, scan overview, immutability status), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about permission requirements, error behavior when the reference does not resolve, or what 'immutability status' looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The '[READ]' marker is mildly redundant with readOnlyHint but is cheap and useful as a scan cue.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should at minimum explain the reference format and the role of target/project/repository. It sketches the return payload but leaves the entire calling contract undocumented.

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% for four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds essentially nothing. It never clarifies that 'reference' accepts a tag or digest, what 'target' selects, or how project/repository scope the lookup.

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 ('Get one artifact') and enumerates what it returns (tags, scan overview, immutability status). The singular 'one artifact' implicitly contrasts with the plural harbor_artifacts sibling, though it never names it explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance. The '[READ]' prefix signals a read operation but the description never says to prefer harbor_artifacts for listing or harbor_scan_artifact for scanning, leaving the agent to infer routing from tool names alone.

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