harbor_scan_artifact

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description's one added insight — 'accepted does not mean scan completed' — correctly discloses asynchronous fire-and-forget behavior, which is genuinely useful and not in the annotations. It says nothing about why the call is destructive or what dry_run changes.

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, and the async caveat is well placed. It is arguably too short rather than verbose, but nothing written 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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with five undocumented parameters and no output schema, yet the description is one clause long. It omits what a scan does, what 'target' selects, and what dry_run returns, leaving the definition inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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% across five parameters, and the description mentions none of them. The agent gets no meaning for project, repository, reference, target, or dry_run beyond their bare names.

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 and resource ('Start an artifact scan'), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings such as harbor_scan_log or harbor_statistics. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to call this versus harbor_scan_all_metrics or harbor_scan_log, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the artifact must already exist) are given. Only the implicit '[WRITE]' tag signals a mutation context.

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