Get Board Labels

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

The description offers no behavioral details beyond the operation itself; there is no mention of return format, read-only nature, or potential side effects. With no annotations provided, the description does not compensate for this gap, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous content. Every word earns its place, making it an example of concise and well-structured documentation.

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?

For a simple list operation with one optional parameter, the description is functional but lacks context about the output (e.g., whether labels include IDs, names, colors). Since there is no output schema or annotations, this missing context makes it only minimally viable for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 single parameter 'boardId' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the default behavior when omitted. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema carries the burden, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('all labels defined on a board'), which accurately distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on cards, lists, or boards. No ambiguity exists about what the tool does.

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 implies the tool's purpose but does not explicitly state when to use it relative to alternatives or provide caveats (e.g., default board behavior is left to the schema). No exclusions or alternate tool recommendations are given, so guidance is minimal.

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