List rule groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds behavioral context: pagination ('Page through'), scope ('active'), and response preview ('up to 25 included rules'). It does not mention authentication, read-only nature explicitly, or rate limits, but listing is inherently non-destructive and the preview detail is useful.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds distinct information (what, definition, response content). No wasted words.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers scope (active), pagination behavior, and what each entry contains. The output schema handles return structure, so the description does not need to explain that. Missing details like sorting order or whether archived groups are excluded are minor.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining 'limit' and 'after_cursor'. It only says 'Page through', which vaguely implies pagination but does not explain these parameters or their roles. The schema provides names and defaults, but the description adds minimal semantic value for the parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Page through every active rule group'), specifies the resource (rule groups), and differentiates from sibling list_archived_rule_groups by explicitly limiting scope to 'active'. It also defines what a rule group is, removing ambiguity.

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 implies when to use this tool (for active rule groups) and contrasts with the archived sibling through the word 'active'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use X for archived groups', so it falls slightly short of full explicitness.

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