linear_get_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no labels match. The phrase 'Get labels' implies a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or response format.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get labels from Linear' establishes the action and resource, while 'optionally filtered by team' adds necessary scope information without 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?

For a simple read operation with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more context about the return format (e.g., list of label objects), authentication requirements, or error handling to help the agent use 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (includeArchived, limit, teamId). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optionally filtered by team' which corresponds to the teamId parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('labels from Linear') with an optional scope ('optionally filtered by team'). It distinguishes from siblings like linear_create_label (create vs get) and linear_get_teams (labels vs teams), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools like linear_get_attachments or linear_get_projects.

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 implies usage for retrieving labels with optional team filtering, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like linear_get_teams or linear_get_projects. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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