list_labels

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses pagination behavior (1-based pages, limit <=100, stop when fewer than limit) and the output structure (id, name, color, description). This is complete transparency for a read-only list 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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and pagination details. The second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and important information is front-loaded. Excellent structure.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields. It explains pagination behavior and prerequisites (call before mutations). It is complete and leaves no gaps for the agent to wonder about.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining pagination details (1-based page, limit <=100) and defaults via environment variables (owner, repo). This enhances understanding without being redundant.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'labels in a repo'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_label, update_label, delete_label by emphasizing it is a read operation that should be called before mutations. The detailed explanation of pagination and label structure leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 says 'ALWAYS call this before any label mutation' and provides the reasoning: label endpoints mix names and ids. It gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies when not to use (i.e., when mutation is intended, use this first). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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