list_labels

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering basic behavioral aspects. The description adds a note about return values and downstream usage, but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like pagination behavior or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then add a useful usage hint. Every sentence serves a purpose with no unnecessary information.

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 simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only and open-world hints, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the return object and how to use the output, making it complete for effective 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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters. It adds a hint about using label IDs, which is beneficial but not directly about this tool's parameters. Thus, the description meets the baseline expectation.

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 'List' and the resource 'labels defined in a repository', leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function. It also specifies the return object type, reinforcing the purpose. Since there are no sibling tools for labels, differentiation is inherent.

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 explicit guidance on how to use the output (label IDs) in other tools that accept label_ids, and clarifies that most tools accept label names. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but given it's the only label-listing tool, this is clear enough.

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