Log Labels

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states it lists labels, without mentioning whether it returns all labels or requires filters, whether it is a read-only operation, or any rate/scope constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with an open-ended parameter.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, making it easy to parse.

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?

Despite the tool being simple, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly. The 'params' parameter is undocumented, there is no usage context, and no indication of what the output schema contains. The output schema exists but the description adds no value beyond the raw purpose.

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 has a single optional 'params' object with additionalProperties true, but the description does not explain what this parameter is for. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does not, leaving the agent unsure how to pass filters or options.

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 action ('list') and the resource ('label names/values in Loki') clearly. It is distinct from sibling log tools like log_search and log_tail, but does not explicitly differentiate itself, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where listing labels is preferable to querying logs, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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