label_regular_intervals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context that 'labels will be numbered' and operates on 'selection or project', but omits whether this overwrites existing labels, requires specific permissions, or what it returns upon completion.

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 efficiently structured with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by an Args block. Every element earns its place. The Args format is slightly code-documentation styled rather than conversational, but remains highly readable and functional.

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 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description adequately covers the parameters and basic operation. However, it should ideally clarify whether the tool returns a success confirmation, the label objects created, or nothing, and whether existing labels are preserved or affected.

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 has 0% description coverage (only titles), so the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: interval (seconds), adjust (fit selection evenly), and label_text (with numbering behavior). It also provides default values for each, which are critical for an agent to understand optional parameter behavior.

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 tool 'Create[s] labels at regular time intervals across the selection or project', providing a specific verb (Create), resource (labels), and mechanism (regular time intervals). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like label_add (single label), analyze_label_sounds (content-based), and transcribe_to_labels (speech-based).

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 implies usage through 'regular time intervals' and 'across the selection or project', suggesting temporal regularity vs. event-based labeling. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like label_add_at for specific timestamps, or whether a selection is required vs. operating on the full project.

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