list_prompt_labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, fully disclosing the safe, read-only, idempotent nature. The description adds the specific return fields (ids, names, colors, status, timestamps) and the purpose for downstream usage, but does not reveal behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey.

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: first states purpose and scope, second lists return fields and links to related tools. No extraneous words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Description covers purpose, use case (choosing label_id), return fields, and optional filters. With comprehensive annotations (readOnly etc.) and a fully described schema, the description is complete and informative for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with all 5 parameters already described in the input schema. The description only adds 'optional search and scope filters' as a summary, which does not materially enhance understanding of individual parameters. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'labels', specifies scope (workspace/organisation) and optional filters. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_prompt_label and update_prompt_version by explaining the return fields and downstream use.

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?

Description provides clear context: it can be used to obtain a label_id for subsequent operations (get_prompt_label, update_prompt_version). It mentions optional search and scope filters but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, which is acceptable for a list tool.

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