get_labels

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that this is a safe read operation. The description adds a use-case hint but no extra behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. This is adequate given the annotation coverage, but no more than that.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get all labels') and appends a compact purpose clause. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It names the resource, indicates the purpose, and relies on the output schema for return-value details. There are no missing prerequisites or hidden configuration requirements to worry 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially covered at 100%, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description contributes nothing about parameters because there are none to document; this is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get all labels') and adds a clear purpose ('for label_ids when creating/filtering'), which distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_categories or get_goals. An agent can immediately tell what this tool returns and why it exists.

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 parenthetical gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need label IDs for creating or filtering tasks. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the resource being labels is distinct enough among siblings that the context is sufficient.

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