gitee_list_enterprise_issue_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action, omitting behavioral details such as pagination behavior (though the schema includes page/per_page), ordering, or what happens if the issue has no labels. For a read operation, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness (e.g., mentioning pagination).

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a list of label objects). It only describes the action. Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, read operation), the description is incomplete.

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% with adequate parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Page number', 'Items per page (max 100)'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 3 applies.

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 'List labels on an enterprise issue' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (labels on an enterprise issue), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitee_list_issue_labels (for non-enterprise issues) and gitee_list_repo_labels.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitee_add_issue_labels, gitee_delete_issue_label, gitee_replace_issue_labels), nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer context from the name alone.

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