List labels in a message box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a safe read operation but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or what happens if message_box_id is omitted (the parameter is optional per schema). This leaves ambiguity.

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 composed of two short, focused sentences without any extraneous information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a practical usage hint. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and use case. However, it omits details about the return format, any pagination, and the handling of the optional parameter. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a fully self-contained specification.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the name 'message_box_id'. It does not explain the parameter's format, required status, or how it affects output. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 configured for a message_box'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning its utility before update_ticket, but does not explicitly contrast with other list tools like list_mail_accounts or list_users.

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 some usage guidance ('Useful before calling update_ticket with label_ids'), but does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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