todoist_get_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning pagination support, which is not obvious from the input schema alone, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format of returned labels). For a read operation with no annotations, this is a minimal but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly convey the core functionality and a key behavioral trait (pagination). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (a read operation with two optional parameters) and 100% schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It lacks output schema, so it doesn't explain return values (e.g., label structure), and with no annotations, it misses behavioral details like safety or constraints. The description covers basics but could be more informative for agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('cursor' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying pagination through the phrase 'Supports pagination,' which loosely relates to the 'cursor' parameter but doesn't explain its usage or format. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all labels'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'todoist_get_label' (singular) by specifying 'all labels', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'todoist_get_projects' or 'todoist_get_tasks' beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pagination but doesn't specify scenarios where fetching all labels is appropriate over other operations or how it relates to sibling tools like 'todoist_get_label' for individual label retrieval. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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