gh_list_labels

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a read-only operation. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool, earning every word.

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 tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential purpose. The required parameters are evident from the schema, and the tool's behavior is straightforward. The main gap is the absence of usage guidance, which is already captured separately.

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 0% description coverage for parameters. The description 'List labels in a repository' only implies that owner and repo refer to the repository, but it does not explain per_page or provide any additional semantics beyond what the parameter names already suggest. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action (List) and the resource (labels in a repository). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gh_create_label and gh_edit_label by specifying the read-only listing action, and the resource name 'labels' differentiates it from other list tools such as gh_list_issues or gh_list_prs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, requirements, or alternative tools like gh_create_label or gh_search_issues. It simply states the function without context.

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