client_getChatLabels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action, omitting important details such as whether chatId is required (it is optional in the schema), what the return format is, or any potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps.

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 is front-loaded with the [Client] scope indicator. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks essential context: it does not specify that labels are returned for a given chatId, does not explain the optional nature of chatId, and does not mention the output. Given the existence of similar sibling tools, this under-specification hinders correct selection and 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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both chatId and sessionId, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, and notably does not explain why chatId is optional despite being central to the tool's purpose.

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 action: get all labels assigned to a chat. However, it does not explicitly indicate which chat (chatId parameter) nor differentiate itself from the sibling chat_getLabels, leaving some ambiguity. The [Client] prefix gives some scope 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 sibling chat_getLabels appears to serve a similar purpose, but the description does not clarify when to prefer one over the other, nor does it mention any prerequisites.

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