List group links

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that entries are 1-based and ordered as the sidebar displays them, which is essential for downstream calls. It omits ordering stability and behavior when the group has no links, so it isn't exhaustive.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the resource statement first and the numbering-consumer note second. The opening noun-phrase fragment is slightly clipped but still front-loads the key information.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is listed, how it's ordered/numbered, and who consumes the number. Missing only minor details like empty-list behavior and whether numbering shifts as links change.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'group' parameter is documented with a concrete URL-name example, so the schema carries the load. The description only implies the group scoping via 'a group's sidebar' and adds no format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Lists the links the group shows in its sidebar under the description') rather than restating the title. It also clarifies that results are numbered from 1, which is the distinguishing characteristic versus other list_* tools. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with the nearest reading siblings (list_group_rules, list_categories).

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 closing sentence 'update_group_link and delete_group_link take the number' tells the agent exactly when this tool matters: as the prerequisite lookup for link-index-based mutations. That's clear workflow context, though it doesn't spell out 'call this before updating/deleting' or any exclusions explicitly.

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