List Harbor Intents

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('tenant-scoped') and access context ('gateway operator view'), which is beyond what annotations convey. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or other traits like 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?

The description is two sentences long, no redundant words, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the main action, the second lists optional filters.

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 tool has 4 optional parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is minimal. It does not cover parameter constraints or output details, though an output schema exists. The agent may struggle with proper parameter formatting without additional context.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It lists the parameter names (status, operator DID, limit, cursor) but provides no details on their semantics, formats, valid values, or required constraints. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 ('list'), the resource ('Harbor intents'), and the scope ('tenant-scoped through the gateway operator view'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like paybond_create_intent or paybond_get_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 implies usage for listing intents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like paybond_get_intent for a single intent or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for selection are provided.

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