harbor_scan_all_metrics

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, adding no new information. Beyond that the description says nothing about how fresh the "latest" scan is, whether it errors when no scan exists, or what shape the metrics take — meaningful gaps for a metrics-reporting tool with no output schema.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but the "[READ]" tag is redundant with the annotation and the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficiency.

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, an undocumented optional parameter, and a sibling whose name overlaps almost exactly, the definition leaves the agent guessing on both what is returned and when to choose it. For a scan-metrics tool in a crowded scan-related sibling group, this is under-specified.

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?

The sole parameter "target" has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent cannot tell whether it scopes by project, repository, or registry endpoint, nor what the null default means. The word "registry-wide" hints at default scope but conflicts with the existence of a target parameter without explaining how it narrows things.

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?

"[READ] Get metrics from the latest registry-wide scan." has a verb (get) and a resource (metrics from a registry-wide scan), which is better than a tautology, but "metrics" is never defined (vulnerability counts? scan durations? criticality breakdown?) and there is a close sibling, harbor_scheduled_scan_metrics, that the description does nothing to distinguish from.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all — nothing tells the agent to prefer this over harbor_scheduled_scan_metrics, harbor_scan_log, harbor_statistics, or harbor_vulnerabilities. The only implicit cue is "latest" versus historical scans, which the agent must infer.

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