List Article Labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond the schema: labels affect Help Center search ranking and are invisible to end users, which is meaningful behavioral knowledge. It omits pagination/truncation behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; the following sentences each add distinct context (semantics of labels, where they get attached). Nothing is repeated verbatim from the title or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could say more about what a returned label looks like or whether the list is paginated. For a simple zero-param read-only enumeration, however, the description plus annotations cover enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the schema carries nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description helpfully names the label_names parameter on create_article/update_article, giving the agent the linkage between reading labels and applying them, though this is about a sibling tool rather than this one's inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all article labels') with clear scope, so an agent immediately knows it is a zero-argument enumeration tool. It does not distinguish itself from potentially confusable siblings such as list_content_tags or manage_tags, which also deal with labeling/tagging.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: by explaining that labels are attached via the label_names parameter of create_article/update_article, it hints at why an agent would enumerate them first. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion of alternatives, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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