list_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It mentions the 5-minute caching behavior and the return fields (id, name, color), which are useful behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects or auth, but for a simple read-only list, this is sufficient and adds value beyond the schema.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('List project labels'), then adds the cache and return field details compactly. Every word 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema present. The description mentions caching and return fields, which is adequate for understanding the tool's behavior. It does not specify filtering or pagination, but none are expected given the schema and simplicity.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific details since none exist, and the schema is fully covered implicitly.

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: 'List project labels'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (list_tasks, list_members, etc.) by specifying 'labels'. It also adds return fields, making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage for listing labels but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The caching note provides some context for freshness expectations, but no explicit guidance or exclusion is given.

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