find-labels

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: shared labels are returned as names only, personal labels have full metadata, search fetches all pages into a single result set, and pagination applies only when not searching. These details are not covered by annotations and significantly enhance agent understanding of the tool's real-world behavior.

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 compact yet information-dense, delivering all key details in three sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides necessary nuance about shared labels and search behavior without redundancy or filler. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (two types of labels, pagination, search behavior) and the presence of output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers all essential behavioral aspects, including shared label limitations and result set handling, so an agent can predict the tool's behavior accurately.

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 already provides 100% parameter descriptions, but the description adds semantic value by explaining the interaction between searchText and limit/cursor (e.g., 'limit and cursor are ignored' during search) and the aggregated result behavior. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, which only state cursor is ignored.

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 the tool's function: 'List personal labels and shared labels.' It specifies the resource (labels) and the verb (list), and distinguishes between personal and shared labels, which sets it apart from sibling tools like add-labels or update-labels. The level of detail makes the purpose 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 provides clear usage context by explaining the difference between searching and not searching, including pagination behavior and the fact that limit/cursor are ignored when searching. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide when to use this tool for listing labels.

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