list_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It implies a read-only list, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, authentication/scope requirements, or default ancestor-group inclusion — all relevant since page/per_page and include_ancestor_groups exist.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero waste. Being this terse is a limitation on substance, not a structural flaw.

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?

For a 5-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits pagination behavior, search filtering, and ancestor-group defaults — the very parameters an agent must reason about to call it correctly.

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 60%, with page and per_page undocumented entirely in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — no explanation of search semantics, pagination conventions, or project_id formats — so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (labels) with the scope qualified as 'in the project'. It's immediately distinguishable from create_label in the sibling list, but the description does nothing to differentiate beyond the verb — no mention of search, pagination, or ancestor-group behavior.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as create_label or any filtered variant. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read-side counterpart to label creation.

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