harbor_project_summary

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the '[READ]' prefix adds little. The description does not disclose whether the summary is scoped by registry target, whether it aggregates across repositories, or how expensive the call is — modest added value beyond 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the operation tag leading. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing details noted elsewhere.

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 multi-resource aggregate tool with an undocumented optional parameter and no output schema, the definition says almost nothing about what the summary contains or how scope is determined. An agent could call it, but not predict the result or understand 'target'.

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% with two parameters, so the description must compensate. 'For a project' implies the required 'name' is the project name, but the optional 'target' parameter is left entirely unexplained — no hint whether it is a registry endpoint, an instance selector, or a filter.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('repository, artifact and storage summary for a project'), and the '[READ]' tag signals operation class. It is distinguishable from granular siblings like harbor_repositories or harbor_artifacts, though it does not explicitly contrast with harbor_statistics or harbor_project.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as harbor_statistics or harbor_project. An agent must infer that this is the aggregate overview tool purely from the word 'summary'.

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