labels_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. The verb 'List' communicates a read-only operation, and the phrase 'system and user labels for an account' clarifies scope. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like authentication requirements, pagination, or permission-based filtering, so it adds only basic context beyond the tool name.

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 front-loaded sentence: 'List system and user labels for an account.' It contains no redundant words and communicates action, resource, and scope efficiently. 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 simple one-parameter operation that has an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and scope. However, it omits any usage context, such as how to obtain the account value or when to choose this tool over siblings. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 one required parameter, 'account', with zero description coverage. The description's phrase 'for an account' gives the parameter semantic meaning, indicating that the account is the scope of the listing. It does not explain accepted formats or value sources, leaving some ambiguity, but it does add meaning beyond the bare schema title.

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 states a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('labels'), and a scope ('system and user labels for an account'). This distinguishes it from siblings like labels_create, label, and unlabel, which perform different operations on the same resource. It is not a tautology and fully clarifies what the tool does.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name any sibling tool or suggest conditions for choosing another operation. The resource term 'labels' implies listing rather than creating or applying, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

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