list_history_labels

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

The annotations already establish read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about session visibility and local plan restrictions, but it does not explain authentication needs, return shape, or pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope details follow immediately and every phrase contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 and the annotations cover its safety profile, but with no output schema the description should ideally say more about the returned label structure. It also leaves the required projectId parameter entirely to the schema.

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?

There is one required parameter, projectId, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions projectId or explains its format, so the schema alone carries the parameter meaning; this is somewhat mitigated by the single obvious parameter name.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Return project version labels,' scoped by session visibility and absence of local plan restrictions. It is clearly not a generic history call, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_history or get_history_diff.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives. 'Visible to the current session' and 'without local plan restrictions' are behavioral scoping details, not usage instructions or exclusions.

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