superchat_list_labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond this: it explicitly states that each call returns only one page and explains how pagination works, which is not present in the annotations. It also adds domain context about label ownership. No contradictions.

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 is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clarifying distinction and pagination guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given this is a straightforward list tool with annotations covering safety and the schema fully documenting parameters, the description provides sufficient context: what it lists, the ownership distinction, and the single-page behavior. No output schema exists, so return format is not expected. It is complete for an agent to call 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?

All three parameters (after, limit, before) have descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description mentions after/before and pagination but does not add any semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline for high coverage, a score of 3 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?

The description states a specific action ('List one page of labels') on a clear resource ('labels used to organize conversations'), and immediately distinguishes them from contacts. This cleanly separates it from sibling tools like superchat_list_contact_lists and superchat_get_label, making the tool's role 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?

The description gives implicit guidance by clarifying that labels belong to conversations, not contacts, which hints at when not to use this tool. It also explains how to use after/before for pagination. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for when to choose this over other list tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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