get_loki_label_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the returned values take (list, array, etc.), if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential function. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (values format, structure), doesn't mention the optional time range parameters, and provides no behavioral context. For a data retrieval tool in a monitoring/observability context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'a specific label' and 'Loki datasource,' which aligns with the 'label' and 'datasourceUid' parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The time range parameters ('start' and 'end') aren't referenced at all in the description.

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 action ('Get all values') and target resource ('for a specific label in a Loki datasource'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_loki_labels' (which gets label names) and 'get_prometheus_label_values' (which is for Prometheus). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the time range filtering capability that the parameters provide.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_loki_labels' (for getting label names) or 'get_prometheus_label_values' (for Prometheus data), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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