harbor_gc_log

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description does not need to restate that. 'Bounded plain-text' is a useful addition signaling the output is truncated text rather than structured data, but it never says how large the bound is, what happens if the log is missing, or whether the log is complete for a given GC 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?

One short sentence with the operation type front-loaded in brackets and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the gaps in parameter and usage coverage.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description should explain what the parameters mean and what the returned text looks like. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to guess at the semantics of 'target' and at log truncation behavior.

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%, so the schema supplies only names and types for gc_id and target. The description does not explain that gc_id identifies which GC run's log to fetch, nor what 'target' selects (a phase, a registry, a sub-step?). With the schema silent, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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: 'Read the bounded plain-text log of a GC execution.' The '[READ]' tag plus 'log' distinguishes it reasonably from harbor_gc_execution, which appears to cover execution records rather than logs. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 choose this tool over harbor_gc_execution, harbor_gc_history, or the other log tools such as harbor_scan_log and harbor_replication_task_log. The agent must infer that this is the log-fetching counterpart from the name alone.

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