Contract Testing: Get Pacticipant Label

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral info beyond stating it's a check. No contradictions. It does not expand on what 'check' entails (e.g., returns boolean or status).

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 concise: one main sentence plus a toolset line and parameter list. The key action is front-loaded. However, the parameter list repeats schema info, which is slightly redundant but not excessive.

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 check tool with two required params, the description covers the basics. However, it does not specify what the output represents (e.g., boolean, label object, or confirmation). No output schema exists, so this information would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description repeats the parameter names and basic descriptions but adds no additional meaning or example values. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'check' and identifies the resource 'label on pacticipant'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add or remove label by being a read-only check. The 'Toolset: Labels' grouping further clarifies its role.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., before adding/removing a label). The purpose is clear but the description does not provide usage context or exclude misuse.

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