read_object_label

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions it 'uses the generic list command' but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, read-only, has side effects, or requires special permissions. The name implies reading, but the description should explicitly confirm safety.

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 extremely concise: a single purpose sentence, a brief explanation of the command, a special case note, and clear Arg definitions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 description explains return format ('dict with parsed label and raw response') and covers a key edge case (macro IDs). However, it lacks error handling information (e.g., what happens for invalid object_type or ID) and does not mention if all object types are supported as claimed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining parameter semantics: object_type is described as 'Object type (e.g., ...)' and object_id is clarified with the distinction between integer for most types and 'pool.id' string for macros. This adds significant value beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read the label/name of any grandMA2 show object.' The verb 'read' and resource 'label/name' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like label_object (which writes labels) and read_cue_info (which reads cue-specific info) by focusing on reading labels for any object type.

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 provides a note for macros about pool-qualified IDs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like label_object or read_cue_info. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer.

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