harbor_replication_policies

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, so the redundant "[READ]" prefix adds nothing. The phrase "measured truncation" gestures at a pagination/cap behavior but is too vague to tell an agent what actually gets truncated, when, or how to detect it.

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?

The single front-loaded sentence is tight and wastes few words, though the bracketed "[READ]" token duplicates the annotation and the trailing "with measured truncation" is an ambiguous fragment that doesn't earn 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?

For a list tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the filtering parameter and the truncation semantics. It leaves both unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently call it or interpret what comes back.

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% — neither "limit" nor "target" has documentation, and the description says nothing to compensate. It never clarifies whether "target" is a name filter, URL, or registry identifier, which is exactly the gap the description should fill.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ("List replication policies"), which lets an agent distinguish it from the singular harbor_replication_policy sibling. However, it never names or contrasts with siblings like harbor_replication_execution or harbor_replication_tasks, leaving differentiation to inference.

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 at all: nothing explains when to pick this list tool versus harbor_replication_policy (single policy) or harbor_replication_executions. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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