Get Harbor Intent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Fetch' is consistent. It adds context about tenant-scoping and the gateway operator view, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions, or rate limits.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose with the verb and resource. No extraneous words; every part is informative.

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?

Given the single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description covers scope and view context. However, it omits any description of the parameter and does not clarify what an 'intent' is, which is a gap for new users.

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 description does not explain the only parameter 'intent_id' beyond what the schema provides (a string). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning or format guidelines.

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 clearly states the specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'Harbor intent detail', with scoping ('one tenant-scoped') and access view ('through the gateway operator view'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like paybond_list_intents (list) and paybond_create_intent (create).

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 description implies usage for fetching a single intent but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_intents or create_intent. No exclusions or context for when not to use are provided.

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