harbor_gc_history

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, and the "[READ]" prefix merely repeats that. The only added phrase, "measured truncation," is cryptic — it doesn't say whether results are capped, how truncation is reported, or whether pagination exists, which matters for a listing tool.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but the single qualifier it does include ("measured truncation") is ambiguous rather than informative, so the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and an unexplained qualifier, the definition leaves an agent unable to determine what "target" accepts or what the response contains. For a filtered list tool it should at minimum explain the scope and result shape.

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 both parameters, and the description mentions neither. "limit" and especially "target" (untyped string or null) are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess what a target is and how to format it.

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?

"List garbage-collection executions" gives a specific verb and resource, and the singular sibling harbor_gc_execution plus harbor_gc_log make the listing role reasonably distinguishable. The trailing phrase "with measured truncation" is not self-explanatory, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus harbor_gc_execution (single execution detail), harbor_gc_log (logs), or harbor_retention_executions. The agent must infer selection from sibling names alone.

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