List Shared Labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, data scope (e.g., only labels the user can access), or pagination behavior beyond what the schema provides. The description lacks detail that would help an agent understand side effects or constraints.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second connects to common use cases. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and hints at its use. However, it could be enhanced by noting that the returned labels include IDs and names, or that the operation is read-only. For a basic list tool, it covers essentials.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (organization, limit, offset) having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely reiterates that label IDs can be used for filtering. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already provides sufficient parameter information.

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 explicitly states 'Lists all shared labels available for tagging conversations.' It clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (shared labels). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'shared labels,' which are distinct from other list tools like list_conversations or list_contacts. The additional hint about using label IDs for filtering or applying labels provides practical context.

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 usage for retrieving labels to filter or apply, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or alternative tools like search functions. However, the context of listing shared labels is clear enough for basic selection.

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