list_label_values

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

没有 annotations，但描述中未说明读取行为、权限、速率限制、返回格式或副作用；仅从“列出所有取值”推断为只读操作，缺少对数据来源或缺失标签时行为的说明。

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?

两个中文长句，表述简洁紧凑，并带有参数示例；无冗余或模糊措辞。

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?

工具较简单，但描述中未包含输出 schema、错误行为、权限/副作用信息，也未说明此工具与 query_logs / list_labels 等相近工具的关系。 label 取值可能受数据源选择影响，但未说明。

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 描述覆盖率为100%（5/5 个参数），描述确实为 range（含格式与默认值）、labels（对未登记标签传参）、labelName（示例）提供了额外含义，但未完全说明每个字段的边界和要求。

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?

描述使用了具体动词+资源结构：“列出指定标签在时间窗内的全部取值”，并带有示例（labelName=app 列出所有服务名），能清晰区别于同类工具，但未与相似工具（如 list_labels）明确区分。

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?

没有说明何时用此工具而非其他替代工具（如查询日志、完整行查询），也没有排除条件或使用前提。仅凭“列出标签值”这一上下文隐式暗示用途。

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