list_labels_on_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the read-only action ('List') and the current state of labels, but adds no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or data freshness. The docs link provides external reference, but the description itself is minimal.

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 concise sentence with a relevant docs link. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no fluff, and every word earns its place.

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 has no output schema, so the description could explain return values or pagination specifics. The current description is adequate for a basic read operation but leaves out what the response contains (e.g., an array of label objects). The docs link partially fills the gap, but a brief note on return structure would improve completeness.

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 covers 60% of parameters with descriptions (owner, repo, issue_number), but the description does not add any parameter information. The undocumented 'page' and 'per_page' parameters are standard but lack explicit guidance. With medium coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't mention any param semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'labels currently applied to a GitHub issue'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_labels' by narrowing the scope to a specific issue, making the purpose 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 the context for use (labels on a specific issue) without explicitly mentioning alternatives. While it doesn't directly compare to 'list_labels' or other label tools, the resource specification is precise enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool. No exclusions are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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