Submit Harbor Evidence

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

Annotations indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that it is a low-level Harbor API call, implying direct database writes and side effects beyond what annotations convey. This contextualizes the behavioral impact.

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 sentences, no excess words, front-loaded with usage guidance. Every sentence serves a clear purpose: specifying when to use and when to avoid.

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?

The tool is complex (5 params, nested objects) with an output schema. The description covers purpose and alternatives but lacks parameter details and behavioral specifics beyond the route. Given annotations and output schema, some gaps remain, particularly around parameter semantics.

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%. The description mentions 'body' and 'recognition proof' but does not explain intent_id, idempotency_key, or completion_preset_id. The agent must infer their meanings from names, which is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 it submits Harbor evidence using a specific route, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool paybond_submit_spend_evidence by specifying the API route and low-level nature.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (when you have Harbor evidence body and recognition proof) and when not to use (high-level spend-control path), recommending the alternative paybond_submit_spend_evidence.

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