gh_list_labels

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

The annotations already provide a clear behavioral profile: read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral detail beyond that, but it does not contradict the 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 a single short, focused sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and target, contains no redundancy, and wastes no words.

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 read-only list operation, the description is largely sufficient, especially with annotations and an output schema available. The main remaining gap is explaining per_page and how pagination behaves, but this is a minor omission for such a straightforward tool.

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 descriptive coverage for parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameter meaning. It mentions 'repository' broadly, helping for owner/repo, but it leaves per_page completely unexplained and adds little beyond the parameter names.

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 specifies a concrete verb and resource: 'List labels in a repository.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from other sibling tools like gh_create_label and gh_edit_label, as well as from list operations for issues or milestones.

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: call this tool when the agent needs to list labels for a repository. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, and alternative or complementary tools are not mentioned.

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