Get Labels

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), and the description is consistent with that. It adds the scope of content types but does not disclose other behavioral details such as pagination, response format, or error handling; however, an output schema exists to cover some of that burden.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the action and the resource types, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could have added a note about the label return structure or how this differs from fetching the full page, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage, including detailed explanations of the page_id format for pages vs attachments and support for any label-capable content. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Get labels') on a well-defined resource ('Confluence content') and enumerates valid content types (pages, blog posts, attachments). It clearly differentiates from siblings like confluence_add_label and other content-fetching tools.

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 this tool is for retrieving labels from Confluence content, but it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this over alternatives like confluence_get_page, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage is inferred rather than explicitly guided.

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