get_matter_labels

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

The description adds 'Fails loudly' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and fails to provide adequate behavioral context beyond a failure mode.

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 two sentences. Every sentence provides value: the first identifies the tool's purpose, the second notes a behavioral trait. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what 'matter labels' are, provide usage context, or indicate prerequisites. The tool is simple, but the description could still add value with a brief elaboration.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description need not add meaning beyond the schema. The description identifies the resource, which is sufficient. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 'Matter labels lookup' which identifies the resource and action, but lacks specificity on what the tool returns or how it differs from siblings like get_client_labels. The '[Not in LCS /v1]' adds context but not 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_client_labels or list_matters. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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