list_rights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest context beyond the annotation: the operation reflects rights 'currently granted' (a point-in-time snapshot) and supports filtering by user or group. It does not describe return shape or pagination behavior, but for a read-only list tool with the readOnly annotation in place, this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and full scope enumeration; the second adds the filter dimension. Every phrase earns its place, including 'or globally,' which communicates the special object_type that requires no object_id.

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 six-parameter read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, the object types, and the filtering options. The only minor gap is that with no output schema, the description does not state what each returned list entry contains, though 'List rights' makes this reasonably inferable.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the group-name caveat. The description only adds that filtering by user or group is possible, which restates the user/group parameters without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic burden.

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') with a specific resource ('rights currently granted') and enumerates the exact scope: queue, custom field, group, class, catalog, or global. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling mutation tools grant_rights and revoke_right, and from get_available_rights, without needing to open the schema.

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 the tool — listing existing rights across object types — and states the filtering capability ('Can filter by user or group'). However, it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as when an agent should use get_available_rights instead, or notes the read-only relationship to grant_rights/revoke_right. Usage context is clear but no when-not guidance is given.

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