List labels

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the underlying WS call, unfiltered results, the empty-list fallback if the response is malformed, and — most valuably — that WS failures return an in-band `[{"error": ...}]` payload instead of raising, which an agent must handle.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then uses labeled Use when / Returns / Errors blocks so an agent can scan to exactly the part it needs. Every sentence carries information; none is 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 no-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything else that matters: the call semantics, the shape, the degradation behavior, and the error convention. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (labels defined in Home Assistant), and states the scope is unfiltered. This cleanly separates it from siblings like labels_list_categories, labels_list_entities_with_label, and labels_list_devices_with_label.

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 'Use when' clause gives a concrete trigger: needing label IDs and names before filtering or assigning them to entities or devices. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative label-listing siblings or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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