label_find

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 does disclose case-insensitive substring matching, but it does not explain the return format, search scope, or behavior with no matches or an empty query. 'Find' implies a read operation, but that is never made explicit.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core behavior appears in the first sentence, followed by a short Args block. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary filler.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description covers the essential invocation details. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the return shape and project scope are left unspecified, so the definition is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema only names the parameter as 'query' with type string. The description adds meaningful semantics by defining query as a substring to search for in label text, and the main sentence clarifies case-insensitive matching. This compensates for the 0% schema_description_coverage.

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 a specific operation — 'Find labels whose text contains the given (case-insensitive) substring' — with a clear resource (labels), verb (find), and matching criterion. This distinguishes it from sibling label list/export/get-all tools, even though those alternatives are not named.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use label_find versus label_list, label_get_all, or other label-related tools. The description only states what the tool does; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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