Bytebase: list issue labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious consequence: 'required: true' means Bytebase will reject the issue if no label is attached. It does not spell out the exact return shape, but the list semantics and purpose are sufficient for this simple read-only tool.

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 sentences with no filler; the main directive is front-loaded and the downstream rationale is compressed into a short, meaningful clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter list tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it tells the agent why to call it, when to call it, and what label semantics matter downstream. The only minor omission is an explicit statement of the return payload, which the phrasing strongly implies.

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 coverage is 100% and the single project parameter already includes a description and example ('Salla-prod'). The description adds no new parameter-level details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete operation ('List') and a specific resource ('issue labels a project has configured'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like bytebase_list_issues. It also ties it to a downstream action, making its role 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?

It explicitly says when to call this tool: before bytebase_submit_plan_for_review when the project defines labels, and why ('offer them as choices rather than guessing label names'). This gives an agent actionable routing without ambiguity.

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