List pull request labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys only that the tool 'lists' labels, which implies a read operation, but it does not describe authentication expectations, error cases, pagination, output shape, or whether any hidden side effects exist.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrases. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this one-liner is too thin. The agent is left to infer label return format, pagination behavior, the role of the optional project parameter, and any authorization requirements.

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 0%, and the description does not explain repositoryId, pullRequestId, or the optional project parameter. It gives pullRequestId a semantic anchor by mentioning 'a pull request,' but it does not clarify required vs. optional parameters or how identifiers are resolved.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List labels applied to a pull request.' It is clear and distinct from list_pull_requests and manage_pull_request_label by naming the target resource (labels) and read-only action, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or explicitly contrast itself with alternatives.

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 intended use case is implied: use this tool when you need to retrieve the labels on a pull request. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no context about the sibling manage_pull_request_label.

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