linear_getLabels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the fact that it returns a list, but does not elaborate on scoping (e.g., all labels vs team labels), whether archived labels are included, or sorting. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the name, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource, which is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan. No extraneous information is included.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks clarification on scope (global vs team-specific), which is ambiguous given the sibling 'linear_getTeamLabels'. An agent might not know whether this returns all labels or a subset, so the description is slightly incomplete but not severely lacking.

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, so schema description coverage is 100% trivially. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for no parameters, and the description correctly does not need to explain any parameter semantics. It adds no unnecessary detail.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get a list of issue labels'. It is specific enough to know it retrieves label data, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'linear_getTeamLabels', which likely has a different scope (team-specific vs global). The purpose is clear but not distinguished.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the existence of 'linear_getTeamLabels' or any conditions for choosing between them. There is no exclusion or context about scope, so an agent has no information to decide which label-listing tool fits the request.

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