waroom_get_service_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list of labels, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the service doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning pagination or context, but it avoids 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?

Given the complexity of a retrieval tool with pagination, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list structure, label details), error conditions, or how pagination works in practice. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters ('service_name', 'page', 'per_page'). The description implies filtering by 'service_name' but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does most of the work.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '特定のサービスのラベル一覧を取得します' (Get a list of labels for a specific service). It uses a specific verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('ラベル一覧' - label list), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'waroom_get_services' or 'waroom_get_service_architecture_context', which also retrieve service-related information.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'waroom_get_services' (which might list services) or 'waroom_update_service_label' (which modifies labels), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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