get_all_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the tool's name ('Get all labels') without adding details such as whether the response is a list of strings, if pagination applies, or any rate limits. This adds no value beyond the name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core function effectively and efficiently.

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 tool is simple, but the description is minimal. There is no output schema, so the agent is not informed about the return format (e.g., a list of strings vs. objects). While the tool's simplicity reduces the need for extensive details, the description could still clarify what 'labels' look like in the response.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%. The description need not explain parameter semantics since none exist, meeting the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 'Get all labels used in Jira' clearly identifies the tool as a getter for Jira labels. It is specific about the resource (labels) and context (Jira), and no sibling tool appears to handle labels, so it is effectively distinct.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Since it is a simple read operation, the usage is implied: use it when you need all labels. However, there is no explicit context or exclusion, so it falls short of a 4.

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