list_all_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or whether it returns all labels across the account. The description is too minimal to compensate for the lack of 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 extremely concise (two words), but it omits important details like scope or return format. While brevity is good, it sacrifices completeness, earning a middle score.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what is listed (e.g., all labels in the account). It is too sparse to be considered complete for a tool with these structural gaps.

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 has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). Baseline is 3 per rule for high schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already fully covers the absence of parameters.

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 'List all labels' clearly states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('all labels'), making it straightforward. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_all_labels_of_a_contact' or 'list_all_labels_of_a_conversation', missing specificity about the scope (e.g., account-level labels).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, if the user wants labels for a specific contact or conversation, siblings exist but are not mentioned. The description lacks any usage context or exclusion criteria.

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