label_get_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that the return format is raw/unparsed (a useful behavioral trait), but doesn't describe the raw response structure, pagination, or size limits. Since it's a read-only fetch with no mutation, the impact is moderate, but for zero-annotation coverage the description could add more context about what the raw response looks like.

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?

Two sentences, extremely efficient. The first states the purpose and return format; the second redirects to the preferred alternative with a concrete reason. Zero waste.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description is quite complete: it states purpose, return format, and the preferred alternative. The main gap is not describing what the raw GetInfo response actually contains, which would help an agent predict the shape of the data. But given the simplicity of the tool, the coverage is strong.

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 tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% by definition. There are no parameters to document, so the description needs only clarify what's returned, which it does by noting raw GetInfo response. With zero params, this is an appropriate baseline.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource ('Get all labels in the project') and characterizes the return format as 'Audacity's raw GetInfo response', which distinguishes it from the parsed alternative label_list. It's clear but doesn't elaborate on what the raw response structure looks like, so not a 5.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to prefer label_list for most use cases, noting that label_list returns the same labels already parsed with the index needed for label_edit/label_delete. This is precisely the kind of when-to-use vs when-not-to guidance that helps an agent select correctly among siblings.

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