List server labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the result contains only distinct labels, reflects the currently applied state, is scoped to the public page, and includes colors. The verb 'List' also implies a read-only operation, providing sufficient behavioral context for such a simple tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the resource, scope, examples, and output details with zero filler. The parenthetical examples improve clarity without adding length.

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 simple, parameterless read operation with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it names the returned data (distinct labels and colors), the source (servers on the public page), and the current-state semantics. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than on inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('distinct labels applied to servers'), and adds concrete examples and the detail that colors are included. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_servers or search_servers, which target servers rather than label metadata.

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 implies the use case: when you need the distinct server labels and their colors from the public page. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, and it names no sibling tools or exclusion conditions, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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