fossa_list_organization_labels

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that providing `label_id` changes the response to include 'locators of the projects carrying that label.' It also clarifies the resource scope (project vs. package labels), adding valuable behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences add necessary distinctions and parameter behavior without redundancy or fluff, earning 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 description covers purpose, usage distinctions, parameter semantics, and behavioral nuances. With an output schema present and annotations provided, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 merely defines `label_id` as an optional integer. The description adds essential semantics: omitting it lists all labels, while including it reads a single label and enriches the response with project locators. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptive coverage.

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 function: 'List the organization's project labels, or read one by id.' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool fossa_list_package_labels by explicitly noting 'Package labels are a separate resource; see fossa_list_package_labels,' which eliminates ambiguity about which label resource this tool targets.

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 explicit usage context by explaining that these are project labels used by fossa_apply_project_label and filtered by fossa_list_projects and fossa_list_issues. It also directs users to the alternative tool for package labels, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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