Get Labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the scope of content types (pages, blog posts, attachments). It does not disclose pagination, sorting, or failure behavior, but given the output schema and simple nature, this is acceptable. No contradiction with 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, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It provides essential scope details without any wasted 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 one-parameter read-only tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the content types and the schema covers parameter details. Error handling and edge cases are not described, but those are less critical given the annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, and the page_id parameter description is thorough, including ID formats for different content types (numeric, 'att' prefix). The tool description adds little beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation (get labels) and the resource (Confluence content: pages, blog posts, or attachments). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on labels, and the title 'Get Labels' aligns perfectly with the tool's function.

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 the use case (retrieving labels) but does not explicitly contrast with the write counterpart confluence_add_label or other content retrieval tools. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is reasonably clear for a simple read operation.

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