برچسب‌ها

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context (returns ids and colors), but says nothing about ordering, counts, or whether labels are workspace-scoped across the enumerated entity types.

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 with no filler, and the return content is stated early. The phrasing 'of one kind' is slightly terse but efficient overall.

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 zero-required-param list tool with a fully documented enum and no output schema, describing the returned fields (ids and colors) and the entity scope is nearly sufficient. Only ordering/pagination behavior is left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema itself, including the parenthetical mapping of 'inbox' to letters. The description merely restates the same kind list, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 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 states a specific resource (labels for one kind) and even discloses what is returned — ids and colors — plus the entity types they attach to. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mizito_list_tasks or mizito_list_notes, though it never uses an explicit retrieval verb, relying on the name for that.

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 mention of 'for tagging tasks, letters, notes...' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling list tools. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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