List labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape ({label, file}) and a policy constraint (never invent a label). It does not mention pagination or the {branch, head} echo, though that is documented in the schema's branch parameter.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The return shape and the pre-write trigger are both front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the result shape, and the branch/project semantics live in a fully documented schema. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, handling of duplicate or commented-out labels), which an agent can discover from the call itself.

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 100%, and both the branch default/'main' behavior and the project scoping are fully explained in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List \label targets defined in the project's .tex files') and even sketches the return shape '[{label, file}]'. No sibling tool (read_file, references_add, list_citations) does this, and the description alone lets an agent distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition — 'Call it before writing \ref, \eqref, or \cref — never invent a label' — which is a real when-to-use rule plus a prohibition. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not case, so it falls just 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.