evidence_get_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get' and 'currently assigned' clearly signal a read operation and current state, but it does not explicitly state non-mutation or mention any access or performance considerations. Simple and accurate, but minimal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb, object, and scope efficiently.

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?

The tool is a simple getter with an output schema that covers return values, so the description does not need to explain those. It is nearly complete, though a brief clarification of how evidence/id/kod jointly identify the record would remove minor ambiguity.

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 schema already explains each parameter. The description does not add meaning about how 'evidence' relates to 'id' or 'kod', beyond referring to 'a record'; it only weakly indicates that a record is being targeted.

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 ('Get'), resource ('labels'), and scope ('currently assigned to a record'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling set/unset label tools, which are mutations.

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 implies use when you need the current label set on a record, contrasting with sibling tools like evidence_set_label and evidence_unset_label. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over evidence_get or how to choose among the label siblings.

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