List Labelixa's first-party label template catalog: id, English name, category, size/density and tags. Read-only product content (no tenant data). Fetch one with template_get; render its ZPL with zpl_preview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Substring match on id/tags | |
| category | No | Filter by category |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose important behavior: 'Read-only product content (no tenant data).' It does not mention pagination or response format, but the read-only safety scope is clearly stated.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the action and resource are front-loaded, followed by return fields, safety scope, and sibling routing. Every clause adds value.
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, low-complexity listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, that it is read-only, and what to use for related operations. Pagination/limits are not mentioned, but this is not a critical gap for an optional-filter catalog listing.
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 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds no detail beyond the schema about search or category filtering, so it earns the baseline score.
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 ('List'), a precise resource ('Labelixa's first-party label template catalog'), and the output fields (id, English name, category, size/density, tags). It also differentiates from siblings by pointing to template_get for fetching one and zpl_preview for rendering.
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?
Provides clear routing: 'Fetch one with template_get; render its ZPL with zpl_preview.' This tells an agent when template_list is the wrong choice, though it lacks an explicit 'do not use when' clause for the listing itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are largely organized by language and action, with clear pairs like cpcl_preview/cpcl_validate and zpl_preview/zpl_validate. The ZPL analysis tools (validate, explain, compatibility, command_help) have distinct purposes, though zpl_validate and explain_zpl overlap enough to cause occasional misselection.
Most tools follow a readable {domain}_{action} pattern such as zpl_preview, bulk_submit, and template_list, but there are several deviations: verb-first names like explain_zpl and convert_zpl_dpi, plus noun phrases like zpl_command_help and barcode_png. The mixed conventions are still understandable.
At 21 tools, this sits in the 16-25 'heavy' range, above the ideal 3-15 scope. The count is defensible given four label languages plus barcode, template, bulk, and conversion workflows, but it still feels dense for an agent to navigate.
The surface covers ZPL generation, validation, preview, compatibility, and conversion, plus validation/preview for CPCL, EPL, and TSPL, along with barcode, template, bulk, and language detection features. Minor gaps exist, such as no bulk job cancellation and no compatibility/health tools for non-ZPL languages, but core workflows have no dead ends.