list_labels_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List labels,' which is minimally informative about a safe read operation; it omits pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, or any potential side effects. The description adds little beyond the tool name.

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?

A single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words or redundant 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?

This is a simple list operation with a comprehensive input schema and an output schema present. The description, though sparse, is sufficient when combined with the structured schemas. It could benefit from noting pagination defaults or read-only nature, but those are already inferable from the schema and tool name.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including defaults and types. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies—the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not detract.

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 ('List') and specifies the resource ('labels') and scope ('for a GitLab project'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_label_tool, update_label_tool, and delete_label_tool, and from other list tools targeting different resources.

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 this tool is for retrieving labels in a GitLab project, which is the intended use case. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions, relying on common sense.

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