harbor_immutable_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond restating read-only status with '[READ]'. It does not disclose pagination behavior, how the 'target' filter restricts results, or what the returned rule objects contain.

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 short sentence with zero filler and the read-only marker front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved by omitting information rather than by tight editing.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently. Nothing explains what 'target' filters or what a rule looks like, which an agent needs before calling.

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 three parameters, so the description carries the burden but explains none of them. 'for a project' loosely maps to the required 'project' param, while 'limit' and 'target' are left entirely undefined.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('tag immutability rules') scoped 'for a project', which is distinguishable from siblings like harbor_retention_policy or harbor_labels. It stops short of naming the nearest alternative, so it is not a 5.

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 '[READ]' prefix signals a read operation, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools such as harbor_retention_policy or harbor_tags, and no stated preconditions. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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