list_labels

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

With no annotations and only a terse description, behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether system labels are included are not disclosed. The description fails to convey any transparency beyond the basic read operation.

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, short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description fails to mention what the returned list contains (e.g., label names, IDs, or metadata). With no output schema, this leaves the agent guessing about the response format, making it incomplete for a tool that returns data.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description 'List all Gmail labels' implies no parameters are needed, which aligns with the schema. However, it does not explicitly confirm the absence of filters, but no additional gloss is strictly required.

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 'List all Gmail labels' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (Gmail labels), which is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_label or delete_label that perform different actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_emails, nor are there any contextual hints about prerequisites or appropriateness. The description is minimal and lacks usage context.

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