get-labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all labels' but doesn't explain what 'all' entails (e.g., pagination, filtering options, or return format). For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical behavioral details like safety, performance, or output expectations.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to scan. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the purpose.

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 complexity (a retrieval tool with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter, return values, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool effectively. More context is needed for adequate completeness.

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?

The input schema has one parameter ('name') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention parameters at all. This leaves the parameter undocumented in both schema and description, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get all labels') and the resource ('from PCE'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-iplists' or 'get-workloads' beyond the resource type, and 'PCE' is unexplained. This is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with siblings like 'create-label' or 'delete-label', there's no indication of when retrieval vs. mutation is appropriate. This is a significant gap in usage guidance.

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