github_issues_list_labels_on_issue

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or pagination behavior. The schema indicates pagination via 'per_page' and 'page' parameters, but the description fails to mention this, leaving the agent without explicit behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at four words, front-loading the action. While efficient, it may be too minimal, but it contains no redundant information and is well-structured for a simple tool.

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 simplicity, the description lacks context about return values, authentication requirements, or any limitations. The schema covers parameters, but without output schema or behavioral notes, the description does not fully inform the agent about the tool's usage and outcomes.

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 description adds no value beyond the input schema, which already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 applies, as the description does not enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 'List labels for an issue' clearly states the action (list), the resource (labels), and the scope (on an issue). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings like 'github_issues_list_labels_for_repo' and 'github_issues_list_labels_for_milestone', which operate on different scopes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_issues_list_labels_for_repo' or 'github_issues_list_labels_for_milestone'. It also omits any prerequisites, context, or exclusionary notes, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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