list_labels

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior ('list all labels') but adds no details about pagination, ordering, error handling, or read-only nature. As a simple list operation, this is minimally adequate 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 very concise: one clear sentence followed by a structured Args block. No unnecessary words or repetition, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and the parameter. It does not mention potential edge cases or return details, but these are either implicit or covered by the output schema. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The description includes an Args section that explains project_id as 'The UUID identifier of the project,' adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type and title. This fully documents the only parameter.

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 'List all labels for a project,' using a specific verb (list) and resource (labels) scoped to a project. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_label, which retrieves a single label, and other label-specific tools.

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 provides clear context about listing all labels for a project, which differentiates it from get_label and other label tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it falls short of the full 5.

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