list_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Liste' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about edge behavior such as whether archived labels are included, ordering, pagination, or handling of an invalid boardId, leaving behavioral expectations largely unspecified.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the operation, resource, and scope efficiently, and every word contributes meaning.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is listed and on which board. Minor gaps such as no return-format description and no pointer to list_trello_boards for obtaining board IDs are acceptable for such a simple read operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema's parameter description ('Parameter boardId (24 characters)') is nearly a tautology, but the tool description's mention of 'board' provides the semantic link that boardId identifies the target Trello board, partially compensating for the weak schema text.

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 uses a specific verb ('Liste') and resource ('labels d'un board Trello'), clearly identifying a read operation that fetches labels for a given board. It distinguishes from close siblings like list_trello_lists and list_trello_cards by naming 'labels' as the target resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_trello_lists, create_label, or update_label. With 44 siblings operating on closely related Trello entities, the absence of any routing cue forces the agent to infer usage purely from the name and one-line description.

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