List group rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: numbering starts at 1 and follows the group's display order, tying it directly to the sibling mutation tools.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, but the opening fragment ('The rules of a group, numbered as the group shows them') is fully subsumed by the sentence that follows, so the numbering point is stated twice. One sentence plus the sibling linkage would have been tighter.

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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial piece an agent cannot get elsewhere: the meaning and 1-based ordering of the returned rule numbers. It does not describe the returned fields, but the low complexity keeps that 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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'group' with an example. The description never mentions the parameter or its format, so it adds nothing 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the group rules') and names the scope ('members agree to'). It also distinguishes itself from the mutating siblings by explaining that update_group_rule and delete_group_rule consume the numbers it returns, though the opening fragment largely restates the title.

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?

Makes the usage context clear: call this to obtain rule numbers that update_group_rule and delete_group_rule then take, which is exactly the lookup-then-mutate workflow an agent needs. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming a distinct alternative for the same data.

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