List Labels

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds a useful compatibility prerequisite ('Needs Docmost 0.90 or newer'), but does not explain authorization needs, pagination behavior, or other operational details.

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, front-loads the scope distinction, and includes the version prerequisite without unnecessary filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the page-vs-workspace behavior and compatibility requirement. Minor operational details such as pagination and permissions are left to structured fields.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the optional page parameter: omitting it lists all labels used in the workspace. It does not add details for limit or cursor, which remain covered by 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List labels') and clarifies both scopes: labels for one page, or all workspace labels when no page is specified. This distinguishes it from label-mutation siblings and from find_pages_by_label, which performs the reverse lookup.

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?

It explains the two operating modes through the optional page parameter, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as find_pages_by_label. The usage is implied clearly enough, but there are no stated exclusions or alternatives.

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