List labels in a company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which fully cover safety. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), providing minor context but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very short, consisting of a title repeat and one additional line about the endpoint and auth class. It is not verbose, but it could include more useful information in the same space (e.g., what a label is, any ordering). It is efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 has an output schema (not provided) which may describe return values, so the description can be lighter. However, it lacks any mention of filtering, pagination, or the nature of labels. For a simple list tool, this may be adequate, but a bit more context (e.g., 'Returns all labels for the given company') would make it more complete.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the single parameter 'path.companyId'. Although the purpose is simple and the parameter name is suggestive, the description does not explicitly state that companyId identifies the company whose labels are to be listed. With only one parameter and 0% coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'List labels in a company', which is a specific verb-resource pair. The title and first line repeat this, making the purpose unmistakable. The tool's name includes 'get' and 'labels', reinforcing that it is a list operation, and it is distinct from sibling label tools like create and delete.

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 the HTTP endpoint and authorization class but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and title imply listing, there is no mention of scenarios or exclusions (e.g., 'Use this to list labels; to create or delete, use other tools'). The context signals show related label tools, but the description itself lacks usage guidance.

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