list_board_labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description is relieved of safety disclosure. It adds value by explaining the domain type (TagElement rows for board cards), which helps the agent interpret results. No annotation contradiction.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides essential domain context. 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 has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description explains the core purpose and the underlying data type. It could mention that this lists all board label definitions (presumably across boards) to be fully complete, but it is already quite clear.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the 3 parameters with descriptions (category, titleSearch, limit). The tool description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema for the parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'board label definitions', and provides specific technical details about the internal representation (TagElement rows with specific targetClass). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_board_card_labels (which lists labels per card) and list_labels (which may be project-level).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_board_card_labels or list_boards. The context is implied by the resource definition, but no direct 'use this when...' or 'not when...' guidance is given.

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