harbor_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of behavioral context beyond that: results are limited to projects 'visible' to the caller (permission scoping) and results may be truncated in a 'measured' way, though neither is explained well enough to act on.

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 the read-only marker front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of semantics captured in other dimensions.

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 explain what a project record contains, whether truncation is reported in the response, and what 'target' filters. It does none of these, leaving an agent unable to call the tool confidently.

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 both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: 'target' is never mentioned and its meaning is entirely opaque, and 'limit' (default 50) is only indirectly gestured at by 'truncation'. This is a real gap for an agent deciding what to pass.

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 ('List visible Harbor projects'), which clearly separates the list operation from the singular sibling harbor_project. However, the trailing phrase 'measured truncation' is unexplained jargon that blurs rather than sharpens the stated purpose.

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]' tag implies a read-only listing, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus harbor_project or harbor_project_summary, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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