harbor_replication_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the "[READ]" prefix merely restates that with no added context. Nothing is said about what a missing or invalid ID returns, whether the response includes execution history, or what the undocumented "target" field does — behavior beyond the annotation is left undisclosed.

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, correctly leading with the read-only marker and the action. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than tight precision.

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 only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description should explain the return shape and the unexplained "target" parameter for a two-parameter lookup tool. As written, an agent knows the tool fetches something but not what it gets back or what the second parameter does.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only glosses policy_id as "Harbor ID" and says nothing at all about the optional "target" parameter. An agent cannot determine from either source what "target" filters or means.

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 and resource ("Get a replication policy") and adds the lookup key ("by its Harbor ID"), which implicitly separates it from the plural sibling harbor_replication_policies. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this single-policy lookup versus harbor_replication_policies or harbor_replication_executions, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a known policy ID. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name and the word "Get".

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