list_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'List' signals a read-only operation, and 'all labels' indicates no filtering or hidden scope. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication, but for a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description adequately reveals the core behavior.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. There is no redundant information 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The simplicity of the operation means no additional prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are essential.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; 'List all labels' fully conveys what the call does without requiring any inputs.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('all labels in Google Keep'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also naturally distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_label and delete_label by focusing on enumeration rather than mutation.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving all labels, which is the correct context for use. It does not provide explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references, but given zero parameters and a straightforward listing operation, the usage context is clear.

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