mgmt_grants_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose response format, pagination, required permissions, or whether it lists all grants or only those for the given counter. This is thin coverage for an unannotated tool.

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 operative text is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is preceded by a raw documentation URL that does not help an agent invoke the tool. There is no wasted prose, but the structure is not clean and the description is under-specified.

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 single-required-parameter list operation, the description plus schema is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, important context such as expected response shape, authentication requirements, and grant scope semantics is missing.

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%, with all three parameters (pretty, callback, counterId) already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List counter access grants'. This clearly identifies what the tool does and separates it from sibling stat_* and mgmt_* tools at a high level, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related alternatives like mgmt_grant_get, mgmt_my_grant_get, or the grant create/update/delete tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and generic list semantics.

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