list_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the optional-team behavior, the ordering of team labels before workspace-wide labels, and the difference between with/without team. It stops short of covering error/auth/pagination behavior, but these are minor for this simple list operation.

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?

Three compact sentences: the primary purpose is first, followed by the parameter behavior, then the integration point with create/update tools. No filler or repetition.

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 single-optional-parameter list tool with a known output schema, the description covers the operation, the parameter effect, the return shape, and the downstream consumers. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 provides only a nullable Team string with a default; the description explains that team may be a key or full name and precisely how it changes the returned set. This fully 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?

States a specific action ('List'), resource ('issue labels'), and scope ('that can be applied to an issue'). The example format and team behavior make it distinct from sibling list tools such as list_teams, list_states, and list_users.

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 clearly primes usage by noting that the returned names are what create_issue and update_issue accept for labels, so an agent knows to call it before those tools. It does not explicitly name siblings as alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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