harbor_gc_execution

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the "[READ]" prefix merely restates it. "Current state" is a small amount of added context (it reflects a live snapshot, possibly mid-run), but nothing is said about behavior for unknown/expired IDs or about polling an in-progress run.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the resource is stated before any qualifier. The only redundancy is the "[READ]" tag, which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

For a simple single-resource getter with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call it with a gc_id. However, with no output schema it never characterizes the returned state fields, and it leaves the "target" parameter opaque.

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% for two parameters. "One ... execution" hints that gc_id identifies the run, but the optional, nullable "target" parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a real ambiguity for the caller.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get one Harbor garbage-collection execution's current state"), and the word "one" implicitly distinguishes it from the list-style sibling harbor_gc_history. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, but an agent can tell what the tool returns.

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?

Usage is implied by needing a specific gc_id rather than by any stated rule. There is no explicit when-to-use vs harbor_gc_history (listing runs) or harbor_gc_log (logs for a run), and no prerequisites such as obtaining a gc_id first.

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