mgmt_labels_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List user labels,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly say it returns a list, mention pagination, rate limits, or any other behavior. The description is too sparse to convey useful behavioral traits beyond the obvious.

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—one sentence with a URL. It is not verbose, but it lacks structure and informative content. While brevity is good, the description is so minimal that it fails to provide context. It is not a model of efficiency; it is just insufficient.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and the tool is a simple list operation, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., an array of label objects) and any relevant details. It does not. The lack of response format information and the absence of any differentiation from sibling tools makes this incomplete for an agent to call confidently.

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 single parameter 'pretty' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter; it simply relies on the schema. This meets the minimum viable standard.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('user labels'), which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like mgmt_counters_list or mgmt_goals_list, though it does not explicitly call out the distinction. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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 such as mgmt_label_get, mgmt_label_create, or other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent would have 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.