harbor_scheduled_scan_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the [READ] tag is redundant. The description does add real behavioral scope beyond the annotation: only the latest scan, and registry-wide rather than per-project or per-artifact. It says nothing about freshness, resolution, or failure states of the scheduled scan.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the operation and scope stated immediately and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 no annotation detail beyond read-only, the description leaves the return value entirely undefined—an agent cannot tell what 'metrics' contains or how to interpret them. For a simple read tool the argument side is fine, but the result side is a real gap.

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 single optional 'target' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what a target is or what omitting it does. The description provides no compensating semantics for the one parameter that needs them.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get metrics') and resource ('latest scheduled registry-wide scan'), and the qualifiers distinguish it from the sibling harbor_scan_all_metrics. It is clear what the tool fetches, though the exact difference from harbor_scan_all_metrics is left implicit.

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 guidance on when to use this versus harbor_scan_all_metrics, harbor_scan_log, or harbor_vulnerabilities. The [READ] prefix hints at a read-only context but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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