List Labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes the read-only listing purpose clear and adds the practical nuance about UUID resolution, but does not mention pagination behavior, authorization requirements, or failure modes. 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is stated first, and the practical use case is given second, making the description immediately scannable.

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 a fully documented schema, an output schema, and a simple listing operation, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it lists, what the result contains, and why it is useful. No essential context is missing.

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 parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that project_id selects a project's labels and that outputs are UUIDs for the labels field, but adds no meaning beyond the schema for either parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List a project's labels (with their UUIDs)." It also clarifies the purpose of exposing UUIDs, which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like create_label and list_work_items.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to resolve label names to the UUIDs expected by the labels field of work items. It gives clear usage context, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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