harbor_vulnerabilities

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail: 'stored' indicates no scan is initiated. It does not say what happens when no report exists (empty result vs error) or how large reports are returned, leaving real operational gaps for a zero-argument-documented tool.

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 no filler, and the [READ] tag flags the operation type immediately. The tag is largely redundant with readOnlyHint, but it costs almost nothing.

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?

A tool requiring three opaque path identifiers, plus an undocumented 'target', with no output schema, needs far more than one sentence of guidance. Critical details such as identifier formats and the shape/content of the returned report are absent.

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% for four parameters (project, repository, reference, target), yet the description only alludes to 'an artifact' without mapping any of these identifiers. With none of the required identifiers (project/repository/reference) or the optional 'target' explained anywhere, an agent must guess the expected format.

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') and resource ('Harbor's stored vulnerability report for an artifact'), which cleanly separates it from the scan-triggering sibling harbor_scan_artifact. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The word 'stored' hints that this retrieves an existing report rather than triggering a scan, which implies the when-to-use condition. However, no alternative is named and no precondition (e.g. the artifact must already have been scanned) is spelled out.

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