get_harbor_info

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds specifics about return fields (status/storage may be null) and error handling (returns error/hint if Harbor not enabled).

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 front-loaded with the READ tag and purpose, then details return structure and usage. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.

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 low complexity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers return format, edge cases (null values, error on not enabled), and links to a related tool. Complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains the single optional parameter 'target': it is the vCenter in config.yaml, and omitting it uses the default. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool gets the status of the Harbor container registry and distinguishes it from siblings like check_vks_compatibility, which checks Supervisor health.

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?

It tells when to use the tool (check registry health, find push URL) and when not to (doesn't list repos/images). It also suggests running check_vks_compatibility first if Supervisor may be down.

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