get_client_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fails loudly,' hinting at error conditions, but does not describe whether the tool is read-only, what it returns on success, or any side effects. Critical behavioral traits like data format or authorization needs are omitted.

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 at two short sentences, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be considered too terse, missing context that could be added without breaking conciseness.

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 description lacks sufficient context for an agent to understand what 'client labels' are or how they differ from other label/code lookups. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't hint at its structure. The version note is helpful but incomplete for tool selection among siblings.

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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. 'Client labels lookup' effectively conveys no inputs are required, which is consistent and sufficient.

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 'Client labels lookup' clearly identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving client labels. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like get_matter_labels or get_activity_codes, which may have similar lookup semantics.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. The only hint is 'Fails loudly,' which warns about error behavior but not about appropriate usage.

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