labels_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the response includes the label's details plus its tagged items, which is useful output-scope information. However, it does not mention error behavior, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, though 'get' strongly implies a safe read.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the most important additional detail (tagged items). There is no redundancy or wasted 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and fully documented schema, so the description need not be lengthy. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not enumerate what 'details' means beyond tagged items, leaving some ambiguity about the exact response shape. It is adequate but not 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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'id' is already described as 'Homebox label UUID' with a pattern. The tool description adds no further semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('single label'), and adds a distinctive scope detail: 'including items tagged with it.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like labels_list, which lists many labels, and other get tools in the sibling set.

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?

Usage context is only implied by the phrase 'single label,' which suggests calling this tool when a specific label ID is available. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over labels_list or other list/get alternatives, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case.

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