missive_list_shared_labels

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with a read operation. It adds context about the nature of shared labels ('folder-like, team-shared') and access scope ('in the organizations you can access'), going beyond the annotation.

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, efficient sentence with front-loaded purpose. Every word adds value: defines shared labels, specifies action, highlights filter and pagination. No redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description could mention the return format (e.g., array of label objects). However, it effectively covers access scope, optional filter, and pagination. With read-only annotation and full schema coverage, it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description summarizes organization as optional and pagination via limit/offset but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('lists') and the resource ('shared labels') with a clarifying explanation ('folder-like, team-shared conversation tags'). This distinguishes it from other list tools like missive_list_teams and missive_list_conversations.

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 mentions the optional organization filter and pagination parameters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like missive_list_teams or missive_list_organizations. Usage is implied but not contrasted.

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