mgmt_my_grant_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. The external URL is not a substitute for in-description transparency, and the behavior is minimally disclosed.

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 extremely concise, a single phrase with an external documentation URL. It is front-loaded with the action, though the leading URL is somewhat unusual and may be noise. Overall, it is efficient with no fluff, though the URL could be considered unnecessary.

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 simple get tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what a grant is, how the current user is determined, or what the response contains. It also lacks any distinction from the related grant tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (counterId as 'Counter ID', pretty as 'Pretty-print response (1)'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds only implicit context that counterId refers to the target counter, but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('current user grant for counter'). It distinguishes the 'my' aspect, though it does not differentiate from the sibling mgmt_grant_get, which might serve a similar purpose for other users. The purpose is specific and understandable.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mgmt_grant_get or mgmt_grants_list. The description simply states what the tool does without any context on selection criteria or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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