describe_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the return value ('description + 3 sample assets') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, error conditions, permissions, or assumptions about the input, such as what happens if the label does not exist.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality. Every word provides value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete because it does not clarify parameter semantics or provide any context about how this tool fits with sibling tools. The lack of schema descriptions combined with minimal textual description means the agent must infer too much from the tool name and parameter names.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the meanings of 'axis' and 'label' parameters beyond their names. The description provides no additional semantic context for the parameters, leaving the agent with only the field names to infer meaning.

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 function: it returns the description of a single label and three sample assets. This is specific about the resource (label) and output, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_labels or find_asset.

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 implies usage for a single label but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or provide references to sibling tools for other scenarios.

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