label_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behavior beyond a simple 'list': it returns labels sorted by Audacity's flat index and clarifies that this index is what label_edit and label_delete expect. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'List every label' strongly implies that.

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 and front-loaded: it announces the core function in the first sentence, then adds the most useful operational detail (flat index and relationship to editing/deleting) in the next two sentences. Every sentence contributes value with no repetition or filler.

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-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what is returned, the sort order, and how the result should be used. The agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and understand the returned data.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none, and it correctly focuses on output and usage context instead.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('every label'), and the returned fields ('index, timing and text'). It also distinguishes this tool from label_edit and label_delete by explaining that it provides the flat index those tools consume, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar-sounding sibling label_get_all.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Call this first whenever you need to modify a specific label, rather than guessing an index.' This tells the agent exactly when to use the tool, how to chain it with label_edit/label_delete, and what mistake to avoid.

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