harbor_scan_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the "[READ]" prefix adds little, but "bounded" does convey a real behavioral trait: the log is truncated rather than complete. The description does not say how the bound works, whether pagination exists, what permissions are needed, or how a missing/expired report is signalled.

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 wasted words; the resource and lookup key come before any qualification. The bracketed "[READ]" tag is mildly redundant with the readOnly annotation but does no harm.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and only a readOnly annotation, the definition leaves too much open: how to source a report ID, what "bounded" means in practice, and how project/repository/reference combine. It is enough to attempt a call but not enough to call it correctly the first time.

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, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains report_id implicitly. Nothing is said about project, repository, reference, or the optional target, leaving an agent to guess how these identify the artifact whose scan log is read.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Read") with a specific resource ("a bounded artifact scan report log") and a lookup key ("by report ID"). This distinguishes it from sibling logs such as harbor_gc_log, harbor_replication_task_log, and harbor_retention_task_log, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

"By report ID" implies a prerequisite (a report ID obtained elsewhere) and "bounded" hints that the output is scoped, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the other log/scan tools. Usage must be inferred from the name and the required parameters.

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