harbor_robot_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that secrets in the response are redacted, which tells the agent not to expect usable credentials. However, it omits the truncation behavior implied by the default limit of 50, which materially affects whether all robot accounts are returned.

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 tight sentence with the read-only marker and the key resource up front, and the redaction fact attached. Nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain what 'target' scopes and whether results are capped or paginated. It supplies neither, so an agent could call it and misread a truncated result as the complete set of robot accounts.

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 both parameters are undocumented. The description never mentions "limit" or "target", leaving the meaning of "target" (project scope? robot account target?) completely unexplained, 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 specific verb ("List") and resource ("robot account metadata"), plus the scope caveat that returned secrets are redacted. No sibling tool covers robot accounts, so there is no ambiguity to resolve; it only falls short of 5 because it does not state scope (e.g., per-project vs global, pagination).

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 preconditions (e.g., admin permission needed to read robot accounts), and no alternatives mentioned. The "[READ]" tag hints at read-only intent but the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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