Get Harbor Intent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context of tenant scoping and operator view, but does not elaborate on error conditions, performance, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key constraints. No unnecessary words.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose and scope. However, it could mention that it returns a full intent object, but the output schema likely fills that 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameter. It does not elaborate on what 'intent_id' is (e.g., format, source) beyond the field name. The tool name implies it, but for a low-coverage schema, more detail is warranted.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('one tenant-scoped Harbor intent detail'), and the perspective ('through the gateway operator view'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_intents and create_intent.

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 mentions 'gateway operator view' implying a target user, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_intents or other get_* tools. No when-not-to-use conditions.

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