hey_list_labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('array of {id, name}'), which matters since there is no output schema; it omits ordering/pagination but those are minor for a label list.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: purpose, return shape, and next-step routing are front-loaded in that order. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 zero-param, side-effect-free listing tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the one thing structured data does not: the return shape. It stops short of noting whether results are cached or ordered, a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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 all labels/folders in Hey.com') and goes further to declare the exact return shape ({id, name}) and the follow-up tools that consume the id. An agent can distinguish it from hey_list_label_emails or hey_list_collections without opening any schema.

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 names two follow-up tools that consume the returned id, which implies a discover-then-act workflow, but it never says when to prefer this tool over the sibling list tools or state any precondition. Usage is inferred rather than specified.

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