harbor_retention_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one real piece of behavioral context — that results include per-task failures — but says nothing about pagination behavior via limit, ordering, or what happens when an execution has no tasks.

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 the read-mode tag first and the scope second; nothing is wasted. Its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure efficiency, but structurally it is clean.

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 tool requiring two integer identifiers with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description should explain the required ID pairing, the target filter, and pagination via limit. None of that is present, leaving real ambiguity about how 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% and there are four parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it explains none of them. It does not clarify the policy_id/execution_id pairing, what 'target' filters, or how 'limit' (default 50) truncates results.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List tasks of a retention execution') and adds scope ('including per-task failures'). It is clear what it returns, though it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as harbor_retention_task_log or harbor_replication_tasks, so an agent must infer which is the right one.

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?

The '[READ]' tag and 'of a retention execution' phrasing imply this is a read-only lookup that requires an existing execution, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to harbor_retention_executions as the source of execution_id. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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