list_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'List team labels' without disclosing any behavior such as pagination, ordering, permissions, or whether the api_token is required to access team-specific labels. The description adds little 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 one short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so terse that it may be under-specified, but that is more a completeness issue than a structure issue.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks context about what 'team labels' encompasses, how the optional api_token factors in, and whether there are any limitations. This is minimally adequate for a simple read operation but leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 optional parameter, api_token, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter or clarify its purpose or effect on the results. The schema itself is somewhat self-explanatory (an optional string token), but the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('team labels'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_label and delete_label, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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