List Article Labels

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: labels are internal (invisible to end users) and improve Help Center search ranking, plus where labels are consumed by other tools. It does not discuss pagination or result limits, which keeps it below 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?

Four tight sentences: what it returns first, then the non-obvious semantics, then how to use the output, then the disambiguation. Nothing is repeated from annotations and no sentence is filler.

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?

A no-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, and the description supplies the return shape (id + name), the meaning of the resource, and the routing to the right sibling. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it is missing.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly further by pointing at label_names on create_article/update_article as the downstream consumer of the returned names, giving the values practical meaning.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List all article labels') plus the return shape (each label's id and name), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly named list_content_tags. An agent can separate it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

States the action to take after listing (attach via label_names on create_article/update_article), advises reusing existing labels over coining near-duplicates, and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('for end-user-visible tags readers browse by, use list_content_tags').

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