List board labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description adds useful behavioral details: it accepts a board ID and supports markdown/json output formats. No contradictions; the description complements the annotations without repeating them.

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 highly concise: a one-sentence purpose, a structured bullet list of arguments, and an example. Every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (list labels, no output schema), the description adequately covers input parameters and an example. It does not describe return values, but the response_format parameter hints at the output nature. For a read-only list operation, this is sufficient.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the board parameter with an example, clarifies the response_format options and default, and provides a natural language example. This goes well beyond the schema's pattern and enum.

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 'List board labels for a board,' specifying a verb (list) and a distinct resource (board labels). It unambiguously distinguishes from siblings like kanbanzone_get_label (single label) and kanbanzone_create_label.

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 clear context for usage: it lists labels for a board with a required publicId. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_label, the purpose is clear enough, and the example suggests a typical query. No direct comparison to siblings, but the context is adequate.

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