Conversation Labels: List Labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not carry — the required auth mechanism (User API key in an api-access-token header) and the note that values may arrive in Persian/Arabic-Indic digits and are passed through unchanged. It still says nothing about pagination or result shape for a read endpoint with no output schema.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the shape is compact: HTTP method/path and auth line follow immediately, then a short locale note. Slight boilerplate (repeating the URL pattern and auth header) keeps it from being maximally tight, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter read the description is serviceable, but with no output schema the agent is never told what a label listing looks like (array of names? objects with ids?), and empty-state behavior is unstated. The auth and locale context are helpful, but the return contract is a real gap.

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 (account_id, conversation_id) are already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The digit-encoding note tangentially hints that ids may be written with Persian/Arabic-Indic digits, but the description adds no format or constraint detail 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?

States a specific verb (list) and a precisely scoped resource (labels of a conversation), including the exact endpoint, so an agent knows it retrieves label associations for one conversation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as gapify_set_conversation_labels or gapify_list_contact_labels, leaving that separation to the name alone.

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 is implied by 'list the labels of a conversation' — a read against an existing conversation id — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of the set_conversation_labels counterpart for writing, and no stated prerequisites beyond the auth line. Adequate but not directive.

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