harbor_retention_executions

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, and the "[READ]" prefix merely restates it. The phrase "with measured truncation" hints at a behavioral trait but never explains it – whether it truncates results, reports a total count, or honors the limit – and nothing is said about ordering or return shape.

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 filler, which is structurally efficient. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but the wording itself contains no waste.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves an agent unable to interpret two of three parameters or the truncation behavior it advertises. It covers the tool's identity but not enough to call it correctly.

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 description must carry the parameter burden, and it does not. Only policy_id is obliquely implied by "one retention policy"; the limit parameter and the target parameter are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

"[READ] List executions of one retention policy" gives a specific verb (list) and resource (retention policy executions), which separates it from siblings like harbor_retention_policy, harbor_retention_tasks, and harbor_retention_task_log. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer harbor_retention_policy or harbor_retention_tasks instead, and no mention of prerequisites. The only implied usage is that a policy id is required, which is left for the agent to infer.

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