get_board_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a non-mutating read operation ('get all labels') but does not mention output format, potential pagination, or whether labels include metadata. The description provides basic transparency but misses deeper behavioral details like returned fields or ordering.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action, the second adds usage intent. No redundancy or filler, every word earns its place.

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?

For a straightforward read operation with a comprehensive schema (5 parameters, all described), the description sufficiently covers the primary context: what the tool does and when to use it. It lacks explicit mention of return value, but the absence of an output schema and the simple nature of the tool make this acceptable.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no extra parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3 without enhancement.

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 clearly states 'Get all labels on a board' with a specific verb and resource, immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_card_labels or create_label. The phrasing is unambiguous and identifies the exact scope (board-level 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 second sentence, 'Use this tool to see the available labels on a board,' provides clear usage context and implies when to select this tool over alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the guidance is direct and sufficient for a simple read operation.

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