list_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It scopes the operation to 'the open schematic' and names the label categories, which is useful, but it never states that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, nor what happens when no schematic is open.

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 zero waste. The verb+resource leads, and the parenthetical label taxonomy is compact and informative.

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 an output schema present and no input parameters, the return values are already covered elsewhere, so the description needn't explain them. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only listing, only missing a note on the requirement that a schematic be open.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 (list) and resource (labels), and enumerates the label kinds (local/global/hierarchical), which helps distinguish it from the nearby list_schematic_text sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a schematic must be open), and no pointer to alternatives like list_schematic_text or get_schematic_hierarchy. Usage is only implied by the verb itself.

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