list_network_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that the tool lists items 'available on a host or cluster', implying a read-only operation and a scoped search, but it does not mention permissions, error conditions, pagination, or the absence of side effects. For a straightforward list operation with an output schema, this basic disclosure is acceptable but not rich.

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 two sentences plus a code snippet, with no filler. The main statement is front-loaded, and the snippet directly illustrates how the tool's output is consumed. Every part earns its place.

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 operation with 100% parameter schema coverage and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It goes further by linking the output to create_desktop_pool and create_rdsh_farm workflows, which a helper agent would appreciate. The only small gap is an explicit read-only statement, but that is strongly implied by 'list', so this is nearly 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%, so both parameters are fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the returned network_label_id and its use in nics arrays, but that concerns the output value, not the input parameters. It does not improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('network labels') with parenthetical clarification ('port groups / distributed port groups'), so agents immediately know what the tool returns. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_network_interface_cards by showing exactly where the returned IDs plug into provisioning settings, making its purpose clear and unique.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a network_label_id for the 'nics' array of create_desktop_pool or create_rdsh_farm. It gives a concrete usage snippet but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses a formal exclusion clause.

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