Datasets List Connection Path Grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it auto-follows Sigma's pagination to the last page and returns concatenated ``entries`` with a null ``nextPage``. That tells the agent the call may be expensive on large paths and that no manual paging loop is needed — real value beyond structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the pagination detail. The second sentence is dense with nested parentheses and reStructuredText backticks, which costs some readability, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining the return keys is somewhat redundant, though it does clarify that results are aggregated across pages. For a single-parameter read tool the definition is largely sufficient; the notable gap is that it never states whether elevated permissions are needed to list grants on a connection path.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The parenthetical "(database, schema or table)" does explain what a connection path can represent, which gives the agent some idea of the id's semantics, but it never says how to obtain a connection_path_id (e.g., via datasets_list_connection_paths) or what form it takes.

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 grants on a connection path") and clarifies the resource with a parenthetical covering database, schema or table. It distinguishes itself from the plural-sibling ambiguity of datasets_list_connection_grants only implicitly — it never explicitly says how it differs from connection-level grants — but the resource is still unambiguous.

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 on when to choose this over datasets_list_connection_grants, datasets_list_connection_paths, or datasets_add_connection_path_grant, all of which sit right next to it. The agent must infer from the name alone whether it wants path-scoped or connection-scoped grants.

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