tool_list_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that all .rpy files under project_path/game/ are scanned and that rich=True reads every label block and is slower. It also describes the returned fields, though it does not mention error behavior for invalid paths.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by scan scope, return details, and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still gives enough return-context to set expectations, and it explains both parameters thoroughly. For a two-parameter read tool, nothing essential is missing.

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, and it fully documents both parameters. project_path is defined as the absolute project root, and rich is explained with its exact extra parsing behavior and performance cost.

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 a specific verb and resource: list all labels in a Ren'Py project, with scope limited to .rpy files under project_path/game/. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool_list_definitions.

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?

Usage is implied by the scanning scope and the rich parameter's cost tradeoff, which helps an agent decide whether to request detailed parsing. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus tool_list_definitions or tool_find_references.

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