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 behavioral burden, yet it only implies read-only behavior via the verb 'get'. It says nothing about permissions, whether labels are ordered, pagination, or what happens if the task has no labels or the board_name is invalid.

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 no filler and no redundancy; the tool's purpose appears immediately. It is arguably too terse for a tool with an undocumented required parameter, but as a sizing measure it is efficient.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows it retrieves labels for a task. However, it lacks any note on how task_id is obtained, board context, or return shape, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 50%: board_name is documented in the schema, but task_id is not. The description adds no meaning to either parameter, so the undocumented task_id (format, source, e.g. from get_tasks_by_column) remains ambiguous for the agent.

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 (get), resource (labels), and scope (on a task), so an agent can immediately tell what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as create_label or get_task_custom_fields, and there is no explicit sibling routing, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentence describes what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., create_label for adding, or get_task_custom_fields for a different metadata type). There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated, so usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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