get_harbor_info

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing edge cases: status and storage are null if the detail call fails, and if Harbor is not enabled, it returns an error object instead of raising an exception. It also explicitly states 'Read-only, no side effects' which aligns 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 well-structured with a short summary, return format, edge cases, and parameter explanation. It is comprehensive but slightly verbose; however, the information density is high and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool returns, edge cases, and parameter details. It is complete for an AI agent to use effectively.

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 only provides a title and type for the 'target' parameter with 0% coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining the parameter syntax: 'Name of a vCenter entry in ~/.vmware-vks/config.yaml. Omit to use the default target defined in that file.' This adds crucial meaning.

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 a specific verb 'Get status' and clearly identifies the resource 'embedded Harbor container registry on the Supervisor'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it does not list repositories or images, which sets it apart from potentially similar tools.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to check registry health or find the registry URL before pushing images.' It also clarifies what it does not do. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for listing images, though the sibling list shows none directly compete.

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