label_list

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, scopes it to the first label track, and discloses what each result contains. It does not cover edge cases like a missing label track, but this is adequate for a simple list tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and returned fields with no filler or redundancy.

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 listing tool, the description covers the essentials: scope and return fields. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling label tools, an agent would benefit from clarification on how label_list differs from label_get_all and what happens if no label track exists.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description supplies the relevant return-value detail that would otherwise be missing without an output schema.

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 a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource: labels on the project's first label track. It also states the returned fields (key, text, time range), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling label_get_all.

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 this tool versus label_get_all, label_find, or label_export. The only implicit context is the restriction to the first label track; no exclusions, conditions, or alternatives are provided.

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