List Harbor Intents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is clear. The description adds value by specifying the 'gateway operator view' and 'tenant-scoped' context, which informs the agent about the data scope and perspective. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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 output schema exists, covering return values. The description covers the basic operation, scoping, and filtering, but omits pagination details (though cursor and limit are in schema). It is mostly complete for a list tool, but could hint at pagination behavior.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only mentions 'optional filters' without elaborating on the meaning of limit, cursor, status, or operator_did. This fails to add sufficient meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'Harbor intents', mentions scoping (tenant-scoped) and view (gateway operator), clearly distinguishing from siblings like create_intent or 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?

While the description implies usage for listing intents with filters, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_intent for a single intent or create_intent for creation. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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