list_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is appropriate for this tool. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but given the nature of the action, the disclosure is adequate for typical usage.

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?

The description consists of two concise sentences: the first states the core function, and the second explains a key use case. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and a practical use case. There is no output schema, but for a list operation, the response format is typically implied. The description does not specify pagination behavior or return fields, but the schema already documents skip and limit parameters, and the tool's purpose is straightforward, so it is sufficiently complete.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by framing the 'name' parameter as a filter to 'find a label ID before assigning it,' which helps the agent understand why they would use this parameter. However, the description adds little beyond the schema for skip, limit, and entity, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'labels defined in Shopmonkey' with context about custom tags. The description distinguishes from sibling tools like get_label (which retrieves a single label) and assign_label (which assigns a label), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear use case: 'Filter by exact name to find a label ID before assigning it.' This signals when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_label for cases where the ID is already known, so it falls slightly short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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