Contract Testing: List Labels

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds workspace-wide scope, but it does not clarify the pagination behavior implied by pageNumber/pageSize while claiming to retrieve 'all' labels, nor does it describe the response shape.

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 opening purpose sentence is clear, front-loaded, and brief. However, the embedded 'Parameters' section duplicates the input schema, adding mild redundancy that prevents a perfect score.

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 read-only list operation with two optional parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is the absence of any indication of what the returned label objects contain, especially since there is no output schema, but the resource and pagination intent are clear enough for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description merely restates the defaults without adding deeper semantics like maximum page size or how pagination interacts with the 'all labels' claim.

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?

'Retrieve all labels used across the workspace' uses a specific verb ('retrieve'), names the resource ('labels'), and scopes it ('across workspace'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract-testing_get_pacticipant_label and contract-testing_list_pacticipants_by_label, which operate on labels differently.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over contract-testing_list_pacticipants_by_label or contract-testing_get_pacticipant_label, so the agent must infer usage solely from the purpose statement.

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