List Page Labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description adds minimal behavioral detail by listing pagination-related parameters (cursor, limit), implying pagination, but does not explain response format, permission requirements, or how prefix filtering interacts with sort. It adds some value but not extensive context.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a clean argument list. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is scannable and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 5 parameters and pagination, but the description is fairly minimal. It does not explain the return structure (what a label object looks like), the default sort behavior, or how cursor-based pagination works. For a read-only list tool without an output schema, this is a noticeable gap, though the argument list covers the main input semantics.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides brief but meaningful descriptions for all 5 parameters, including an example for prefix. However, it lacks specifics like allowed sort values or default limits, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('labels attached to a page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_space_labels or list_pages_with_label. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 does not provide any context about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It only describes the basic action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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