Github List Repo Labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, error handling, response format, or rate limits. It is consistent with annotations (no contradiction), but it provides minimal extra value beyond the annotations, which are already sufficient for a read-only 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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The workflow hint is concise and adds a useful directive without waste. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 straightforward and has an output schema (not shown but indicated), so return values need not be explained. The workflow hint gives some context but is cryptic—it doesn't clarify what github_get_skill returns or how it affects usage. The lack of parameter descriptions and edge-case guidance (e.g., empty repo, invalid owner) makes it only partially complete, though acceptable for a simple read-only tool.

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 only 25% (only per_page has a description). The description text does not mention any parameters at all, leaving repo_owner, repo_name, and page without any semantic explanation in either the schema or the description. Since the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 states a specific operation: 'Lists the labels defined in a repository.' It is clear about the resource (labels) and the action (list). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_list_milestones and github_list_releases by the resource type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and directly maps to the tool name.

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 includes a workflow directive: 'Workflow and conventions: github_get_skill('issue-management').' This implies the tool is part of an issue-management workflow and instructs the agent to fetch a skill first, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. other list tools, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the skill call. The guidance is contextual but not fully explicit.

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