uvcs_label_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is a restatement rather than new information. It does add the sort order ('newest first') and the projected fields, but says nothing about pagination, empty-result behavior, or how maxResults interacts with the ordering.

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 plus a short clause; nothing is buried and there is no preamble. The trailing 'Read-only.' earns little since annotations already say it, a minor redundancy.

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?

All parameters are optional and fully described in the schema, safety is covered by annotations, and with no output schema the description usefully enumerates the returned fields. Only the pagination/result-limit behavior is left implicit, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 100% – each of the five optional filters (owner, since, branch, nameLike, maxResults) is documented in the schema with format and bounds. The description adds no filter semantics of its own, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List labels') plus the ordering ('newest first') and the fields surfaced (labeled changeset, branch, owner, comment). The 'list' verb and the uvcs_label_create_prepare/confirm siblings make the read-vs-write split obvious without naming an alternative.

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 statement of when to reach for this versus alternatives such as uvcs_branch_list or uvcs_changeset_analytics, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only signal is the generic 'List' verb; an agent must infer the discovery use case entirely.

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