get_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if multiple labels match. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. There's no wasted text, but it may be overly brief, risking under-specification. Every sentence adds value, though more detail could improve clarity without sacrificing efficiency.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a parameter count of 1 with nested objects, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how the tool interacts with sibling tools like 'get_labels_list'. For a tool with minimal structured data, more context is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions using 'id' or 'name' to identify the target, which adds some meaning beyond the schema's property names. However, it doesn't explain the 'items' array structure, clarify if both 'id' and 'name' can be used together, or provide examples. With 1 parameter and low coverage, this is insufficient.

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 the tool 'Get a personal label from Todoist', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('personal label'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_labels_list' or 'get_shared_labels'. However, it lacks specificity about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve details, fetch metadata) and doesn't fully differentiate from similar tools beyond mentioning 'personal'.

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 like 'get_labels_list' or 'get_shared_labels'. It mentions identifying a target with 'id' or 'name', but this is parameter guidance rather than usage context. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative advice are given.

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