Datasets List Connection Grants

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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/open-world, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it auto-paginates to the last page and therefore returns everything in one call. It also states that nextPage is null and hasMore is false, which prevents the agent from attempting manual pagination. It says nothing about volume or rate-limit implications of draining all pages.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence, followed by a compact but dense pagination note. No filler, though the second sentence packs several return-shape keys that could be trimmed given an output schema exists.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose and the key non-obvious behavior (full auto-pagination). The remaining gap is the undocumented connection_id semantics, which matters for correct invocation.

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 single parameter connection_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only says 'on a connection'. It does not state the expected format (ID vs name/slug) or that IDs come from datasets_list_connections.

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 ('List permission grants on a connection'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate from the close sibling datasets_list_connection_path_grants or note that add/delete grant tools exist, leaving scope boundaries to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to datasets_list_connection_path_grants for path-level grants. An agent can infer the call, but the connection-vs-path-grant distinction is left unresolved.

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