get_harbor_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, so safety is clear. The description adds specific return fields (URL, storage, status) and the error hint for disabled Harbor, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences, directly stating purpose and return values, with a clear [READ] prefix. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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?

While the return values are explained, the tool's single parameter 'target' is completely unexplained. No output schema exists, so the description should clarify the parameter's role and possible values, but it does not.

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?

The input schema has one optional parameter 'target' with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention 'target' at all, so it adds no meaning to the parameter, which is a critical gap.

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 retrieves Harbor registry info (URL, storage, health status) and specifies an error case. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on clusters, namespaces, etc., making its purpose obvious.

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 when Harbor is enabled (via error hint) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. While siblings are distinct, no 'when not to use' or comparative context is provided.

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