list-labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions optional pagination. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the format of returned data (e.g., list structure, label fields). For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all labels in a project') and adds a useful detail ('with optional pagination'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for its function.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (list operation), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, data format) and usage context, which are important for an agent to use it correctly despite the good schema support.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning 'optional pagination', which is already covered by the 'cursor' parameter description. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('all labels in a project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-label' (singular) or 'list-issues' (different resource), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-label' for a single label or 'list-issues' for issues with labels. It mentions optional pagination but doesn't explain when pagination is needed or how it relates to other list tools in the context.

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