list_labels

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, sorting, error handling (e.g., invalid project_id), or authentication requirements. For a simple list operation this is somewhat adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler or redundant information. It earns every word.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequately complete. It clearly scopes the operation to a project, and the purpose is immediately understandable. It could optionally mention return format, but that is covered by a potential output schema, which is absent.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (project_id described as 'Project UUID'). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 'List labels for a project' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('labels') while clearly stating scope ('for a project'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues, list_states, and list_cycles, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 implies usage: call this when you need labels associated with a specific project, and the schema requires project_id. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., create_label for creating labels, or list_projects if you need project info), nor does it state when not to use it.

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