harbor_retention_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates that. Beyond safety, the description says nothing about what is returned, whether a missing id errors or returns empty, or any permission requirements.

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 '[READ]' tag is redundant with readOnlyHint and is the only wasted token, so it is efficient without being maximally informative.

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 read with no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the core operation but leaves the 'target' parameter and return behavior unaddressed. Adequate minimum, but with clear gaps.

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% across two parameters, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies only that policy_id is the 'actual Harbor policy id' (not a name or index), while the 'target' parameter is never mentioned and remains entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get one retention policy' by 'its actual Harbor policy id'. This clearly distinguishes a single-policy fetch from the list-style siblings such as harbor_retention_tasks or harbor_retention_executions, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The phrase 'by its actual Harbor policy id' implies the tool requires an already-known id (versus listing), but that routing logic is left entirely to inference.

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