list_labels

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 description need not repeat safety traits. It adds behavioral context by explicitly mentioning cursor pagination and optional name search, which informs the agent about iteration and filtering behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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: 'List reusable labels with optional name search and cursor pagination.' Every word is necessary and adds distinct value, with zero redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list operation with an output schema available. The description covers the core action, search, and pagination. It does not describe return values, but the output schema handles that, and annotations provide safety context. Reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 descriptions cover limit, project_ref, and agent_session_handle, but query and cursor have no descriptions. The description's 'name search' maps to query and 'cursor pagination' maps to cursor, compensating for the undocumented parameters. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema, though it does not parse the exact syntax for query.

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?

Description starts with the specific verb 'List' and resource 'reusable labels', making the primary action unambiguous. It further differentiates from sibling list_* tools by mentioning optional name search and cursor pagination, which are unique capabilities for this tool.

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 the tool is for retrieving labels, with optional name filtering and pagination. Although it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the resource-specific wording ('reusable labels') makes the use case clear. It provides enough context for an agent to choose this tool when labels are involved.

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