clio_list_grants

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state that this is a read-only, safe operation (no destructive effects). It doesn't mention pagination, result limits, or performance considerations. The routing detail is not behavioral.

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 short (three sentences). It front-loads the tool name and routing context, then introduces the parameter. It avoids unnecessary repetition. However, the routing detail could be omitted or placed elsewhere.

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?

Given the complexity (list operation with an output schema), the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain scope (user/workspace?), typical use, or how it differs from other list tools. The output schema exists but the description adds no context about what to expect.

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?

The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds some meaning beyond the schema (which just says 'Arguments'), but it's still vague—no hint about what arguments are expected (e.g., filters, pagination). With 0% schema description coverage, more detail would be warranted.

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 tool lists grants (Clio connector operation `list_grants`). It distinguishes from siblings like clio_get_grant (single) and clio_create_grant (create). However, it doesn't explain what a 'grant' is in the Clio context, which is a minor gap.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios, filtering, or when to prefer list_grants over search or get_grant. This absence makes it hard for an AI agent to decide appropriately.

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