list_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful detail about cache reuse when the signature is identical, which is beyond what the schema or name would imply. However, it omits other relevant traits such as whether this is a read-only operation or if any side effects occur.

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 communicates both the primary purpose and a notable behavioral trait. It is not verbose, but its brevity sacrifices information richness, so it is efficient yet not fully structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and sufficient behavioral detail. For a tool with one required nested request object and three optional fields, the description is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not compensate. None of the parameters (axis, enabled_only, with_description) are explained, making it impossible for an agent to know how to set them for desired results.

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 clear action ('returns') and a specific resource ('label vocabulary list + catalog signature'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_label_axes or describe_label, relying on the tool name and context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description focuses solely on the return value and caching behavior, with no mention of prerequisites, filters, or intended use cases.

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