list_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'List labels for a repository' without mentioning pagination, ordering, rate limits, or any side effects. The schema includes pagination parameters (page, limit), but the description does not indicate they exist or how they affect results.

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 a single concise sentence of 4 words that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary; no wasted content.

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?

Although parameters are well-documented in the schema, the tool lacks an output schema and the description does not explain what the return value is (e.g., an array of label objects). For a tool with pagination, the absence of output description reduces completeness.

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%, with all four parameters (owner, repo, page, limit) having clear descriptions in the JSON Schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already 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?

The description 'List labels for a repository' clearly specifies the action (list) and the resource (labels for a repository). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_label' (single label) and 'list_org_labels' (org-level labels), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_label' for a specific label, 'list_org_labels' for org-level labels). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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