List Harbor Intents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's job is partially fulfilled. The description adds that the operation goes through the 'gateway operator view' and supports filters, providing useful context without contradicting annotations. It could mention whether pagination is handled or any 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?

Two short sentences with no superfluous words. The main action is front-loaded, and the optional filters are listed efficiently. Excellent conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so describing return values is not necessary. However, for a list tool with pagination parameters (cursor, limit), the description lacks guidance on pagination behavior (e.g., how to use cursor to get next page). This omission reduces completeness for an agent needing to iterate results.

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 should compensate. It merely lists the filter types (status, operator DID, limit, cursor) without explaining their meaning or usage. For example, it doesn't clarify what values 'status' accepts or how 'cursor' affects pagination. This is insufficient for a tool with four parameters.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'Harbor intents', and mentions the scope 'tenant-scoped' and access method 'gateway operator view'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'paybond_create_intent' and '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 with optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'paybond_get_intent' for individual intents or other listing tools. No when-not or alternative tool names are provided.

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