list_labs

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: recursive walking, handling EVE-NG API limitations, loop protection, max depth/folder ceilings, and skipping '..' entries. This is comprehensive and transparent about side effects and constraints.

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 with a clear first sentence stating core purpose, followed by key behavioral details, then an Args section for parameters. Every sentence adds value. Minor improvement: could be slightly tighter (e.g., 'Always recursive' is already implied).

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 tool complexity (recursive listing, API limitations, loop protection), the description is comprehensive. It explains behavior, constraints, and parameter semantics fully. The output schema exists, so return values aren't needed.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains `path` default ('/') and its role as starting folder, describes `search` as case-insensitive substring matching with same convention as sibling tools, and clarifies empty default matches all. This compensates fully for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Recursively list every lab under `path`', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_folder' by emphasizing recursive behavior and the lab focus.

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 'Always recursive' behavior and that it lists labs, not folders. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., `list_folder` for non-recursive folder listing), but context hints at differentiation. Could explicitly state when to use `list_folder` instead.

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