Get label

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only adds that lookup is by name; it says nothing about scope resolution, behavior when the label is not found, or permission requirements.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is under-specification rather than deliberate density.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation anywhere, one sentence is insufficient. The agent cannot tell what scope the label lives in, what the unknown parameters do, or what shape the response takes.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It mentions only 'name' and leaves project_id, new_name, color and description entirely unexplained — the presence of 'new_name'/'color'/'description' on a supposedly read-only getter is particularly confusing without clarification.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific label') and adds the retrieval key ('by name'), which distinguishes it from the plural-list sibling gitlab_get_labels. It stops short of naming that sibling or stating the scope (project vs group), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 on when to use this instead of gitlab_get_labels (list) or gitlab_update_label, and no prerequisites such as whether project_id is required to resolve the label. The agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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