list_release_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are paginated, describes the envelope (results, total_count, next_cursor, next_page_results), and explains the looping behavior. It does not mention error cases or permissions, but for a list operation this is acceptable.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-line summary, then scoping rules, then parameter definitions, then return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers both usage modes, explains pagination thoroughly, and documents all parameters. No critical gaps remain; the agent can invoke it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage and all parameters are nullable. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: release_id as a UUID scoping filter, cursor as a continuation token, and per_page with a default of 20. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 begins with a clear statement: 'List release labels (paginated).' It then distinguishes two scoping modes: with release_id it lists labels attached to that release, without it lists the workspace palette. This differentiates it from siblings like list_labels and list_release_tags, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use each mode: 'With release_id... Without it...' and provides pagination guidance for cursor and per_page. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scoping context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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