list_loki_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (listing labels) and that optional time range filtering is available. However, it does not mention any potential performance implications, authentication requirements, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic function.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose, followed by a brief Args and Returns section. No unnecessary information, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (listing label names with optional time filters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs, output format, and behavior. It lacks only minor details like pagination or rate limits, but is largely complete for a straightforward listing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the start and end parameters as optional time range filters, but omits details like expected format (e.g., RFC3339 string, Unix timestamp) or how they affect the results. This provides basic meaning but not complete clarity.

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 clearly states the tool lists available Loki label names from the configured datasource. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_loki_label_values, which lists values for a specific label, by specifying the resource (label names) and the action (list).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or cases where other tools like query_loki_logs or list_loki_label_values might be more appropriate.

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