todoist_get_personal_label

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, return values (e.g., label properties returned), and how it differs from sibling tools. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively without additional assumptions or trial-and-error.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'label_id' documented as 'ID of the label to retrieve'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as where to find label IDs or format examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a personal label by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'todoist_get_personal_labels' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single label. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other read operations like 'todoist_get_shared_labels' beyond the 'personal' qualifier.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid label ID), compare it to 'todoist_get_personal_labels' for listing all labels, or indicate scenarios where fetching a single label is preferable. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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