label_list

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries burden. It discloses the sort order (by Audacity's flat index) and notes it feeds label_edit/label_delete. But it doesn't describe return format, read-only safety, or side effects. For a read-only list tool with no annotations, this is moderate coverage.

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 tight sentences, zero filler. The first states the purpose, the second explains the critical sorting detail and usage directive. Every sentence 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?

For a 0-parameter list tool, the description is mostly complete: states content, sort order, and usage pattern. Slight gap is no mention of return format or how large outputs are handled, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly notes this is a no-argument call that simply lists everything. Baseline 4 for 0 params is exceeded because the description explains what the no-arg call returns.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List every label with its index, timing and text.' States what content is returned. Somewhat generic among label tools (label_get_all, label_find, label_export), but the emphasis on returning index differentiates partially.

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 states when to use: 'Call this first whenever you need to modify a specific label, rather than guessing an index.' Directly names label_edit and label_delete as downstream consumers, providing clear usage context and preventing guessing.

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