list_labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope 'in a project' and the purpose of returning UUIDs, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or the exact structure of the response. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

While annotations cover safety and the description handles the main purpose, the absence of parameter explanations for 6 optional fields leaves the tool under-described. The lack of an output schema increases the burden on the description to clarify response content, which it only vaguely addresses.

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% for 6 parameters. The description only implies project_id via 'in a project' and fails to explain cursor, expand, fields, order_by, or per_page. With such low coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 all labels in a project, with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the downstream purpose (getting label UUIDs for work items), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'retrieve_label' or 'create_label'.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this tool: to get label UUIDs needed for creating or filtering work items. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear and contextually grounded.

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