List explicit database and schema grants in a database

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is known. The description contributes nothing further, such as whether grants are inherited vs explicit (the adjective 'explicit' hints at it without explaining), or whether system/default grants are excluded. For a tool whose annotations carry the behavioral burden, the description still fails to add any value.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, so structurally it is fine. But this is conciseness achieved through under-specification rather than precision — the sentence omits everything an agent would need to call the tool correctly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the grant records look like (grantees, privilege types, object names) and whether results include default/public grants. It also leaves per-parameter meaning entirely unexplained given 0% schema coverage. For a 3-parameter list tool, this is not complete enough.

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%: cluster, database, and namespace are all undocumented in both schema and description. The description only vaguely implies the 'database' parameter by mentioning 'in a database,' and never explains cluster or namespace scoping, which is a significant gap for 3 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?

Tautological: description restates name/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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as postgres_roles_list, permissions_get, or the sibling mysql_grants_list. It also does not state whether grants can be filtered by role, object, or grantee, leaving the agent to guess at scope.

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