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 safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations convey—nothing about pagination limits, ordering, or repository permissions. It is consistent with annotations (no contradiction), so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, compact sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity is partly a consequence of under-specification rather than deliberate optimization.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with an output schema present, which reduces the burden on the description. However, it omits any mention of pagination behavior or the meaning of the page parameter, and gives no usage context. Adequate for a minimal list tool, but with clear gaps.

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); repo_owner, repo_name, and page are undocumented in the schema. With coverage below 50%, the description is expected to compensate, but it explains none of the parameters and adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('labels') scoped to 'a repository'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_tags, list_releases, and list_pr_comments, which target different resources. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the resource 'labels' is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected over other list operations available among the many siblings.

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