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 burden, and it is thin. It hints at return content ('with ids') but says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/perPage parameters, nor about permissions, ordering, or result limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and the practical reason for calling it appear immediately. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the key return field (ids). However, with three parameters at 33% schema coverage and no annotations, pagination and filtering behavior are left undisclosed, which an agent invoking it with search or paging would need.

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 33% (only 'search' is documented) and the description compensates for none of it. It never mentions page, perPage, or the search filter, so an agent must infer pagination and filtering entirely from bare schema properties.

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+resource ('List labels') and adds scope ('available to the user') plus the reason the output matters (ids for create_task / update_task). This separates it from the write-oriented sibling create_label, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_projects or list_tasks.

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 clause 'with ids for use in create_task / update_task' makes the calling context clear: fetch this before populating label ids on tasks. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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