GET /statuslabels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination behavior despite offset/limit parameters, no note on filtering semantics, and no indication of what the payload contains.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ("Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation statuslabels") restates the tool name and endpoint and earns no place. The core sentence is efficient, but the description is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

A 7-parameter list endpoint with no output schema and several near-duplicate siblings needs more: filtering behavior, pagination defaults, and response shape are all unstated. With no output schema, the description should at least sketch what a status label record contains, and it does not.

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 71%, and the schema already documents sort, order, limit, offset, and search, while status_type carries an enum. The description contributes no additional meaning for any parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for a schema that does most of the work.

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 and resource ("Retrieve a list of status labels"), so the basic purpose is clear. However, the sibling list contains near-identical tools (snipeit_list_statuslabels, snipeit_gen_statuslabels_1) and the description gives no basis for choosing among them, nor does it clarify the relationship to it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as snipeit_list_statuslabels or snipeit_get_statuslabel_assets for deeper lookups. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and path.

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