Contract Testing: List Labels

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 no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination, data freshness, or workspace scope). Annotations cover safety, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 short but includes an unsandard 'Toolset: Labels' line that adds no value and the parameter list is redundant with the schema. More focused content would improve 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?

For a list operation with no output schema, the description does not explain the response format, what 'labels' represent, or how pagination works. In a large sibling set, more context is needed for correct agent usage.

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 descriptions for pageNumber and pageSize. The description merely repeats these, adding no new meaning or clarification beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description states 'Retrieve all labels used across the workspace' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. While it distinguishes from siblings that add/remove labels, it doesn't explicitly highlight the distinction, but the tool name and context suffice.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pacticipant_label or list_pacticipants_by_label. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases or limitations.

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