List label groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by naming the source of truth (groups workers apply to emails/meetings) and surfacing the next_cursor pagination contract. It does not state ordering of results or what happens on an invalid/stale cursor, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool lists and followed by the return shape; nothing is padded. The second sentence partially restates what the output schema already provides, which is the only wasted weight.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety, so the remaining burden is purpose plus usage. Purpose and the pagination contract are covered; what an agent still lacks is result ordering and any relationship to worker configuration, which is why this stops at 4 rather than 5.

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%, so every parameter (limit, cursor, search, is_active, response_format) is already documented in the schema, including the note about symbols causing errors. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting that values carry ids; baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Lists the workspace's classification label groups ... that the workers apply to emails and meetings" gives a specific verb, a scoped resource, and the domain role of the data, with a concrete example (Intent with Pricing and Support). It is unambiguously the read-side counterpart of heliyos_labels_create/update/delete among the siblings.

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 listing intent is clear and the response_format enum hint implies a 'fetch then pick shape' workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to reach for heliyos_labels_create/update/delete instead, and no note on whether workers must already be configured for these groups to exist. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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