get_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope ('all object labels') and filtering behavior, but does not mention any edge cases, ordering, historical depth, or read-only confirmation beyond what the verb 'get' implies. This is adequate for a simple READ operation but does not go beyond the obvious.

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 three short sentences that front-load the core action and follow with optional filtering and examples. No filler or repetition—every sentence 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?

Given a single optional parameter, an output schema, and the straightforward nature of the tool, the description is complete. It states the default behavior (all labels) and the filter option without needing to explain return values since an output schema exists.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the example common labels list, which is helpful context, but does not add material meaning to the 'camera' parameter beyond the schema's own description ('Camera name to filter labels for').

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 opens with 'Get all object labels that have been detected,' which clearly states a specific verb and resource. The optional camera filter further refines the scope, and this differentiates it from sibling tools like get_camera_label_best or get_sub_labels which target specific label types or best labels.

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 states the primary use case (retrieve all detected labels) and provides explicit optional filtering guidance ('filter to labels seen on a specific camera'). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear for a simple lookup tool.

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