mgmt_label_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get label by ID', implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires authentication, or what the response contains. The minimal wording fails to provide meaningful transparency beyond the verb.

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 extremely concise with only a URL and a short phrase. While it is terse, the leading URL is unhelpful and takes up space without adding value. The functional text is efficient but lacks structure, such as separating the action from additional context. It is not overly verbose, but the URL is a distraction.

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 get operation with only two parameters, the description is barely adequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, any error conditions, or how it fits into the broader management API. Given the large number of sibling tools, an agent might need more context to select it correctly, especially to differentiate it from other get operations like mgmt_goal_get or mgmt_filter_get. The description does not mention that it is specific to labels beyond the name.

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%: both labelId and pretty have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not enhance understanding. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers the parameters.

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 'Get label by ID', which is a clear verb-resource pair with a specific retrieval method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mgmt_labels_list (list), mgmt_label_create (create), etc. The purpose is unambiguous, though it is minimal and relies on the name for full clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for retrieving a single label when you have its ID, nor does it reference mgmt_labels_list for listing all labels. No prerequisites or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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