list_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, that results are paginated (despite saying 'all labels' while the API returns pages), or any auth requirements. The 'all' wording could mislead an agent into thinking one call retrieves everything.

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 one sentence plus a docs link, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is essential, and there is no redundant repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a simple list tool, the core purpose is clear and the schema covers required params. However, the pagination mismatch and lack of behavioral context make it only minimally viable. A mention of pagination or return format would round it out.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (owner and repo are described, page and per_page are not). The description adds no parameter guidance or context about pagination parameters. The phrase 'all labels' obscures the need for pagination, and the description does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'labels defined in a GitHub repository', clearly distinguishing this from siblings like list_labels_on_issue or remove_label. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 clearly states it lists repo-level labels, which implies when to use it (when needing all labels in a repo) and differentiates it from issue-level label tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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