sigma_list_connection_grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as whether grants are returned as a list of user/group permissions, whether inherited grants are included, or any pagination implications. It merely restates the tool's purpose without enriching understanding.

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 a single sentence with no filler, stating the action, resource, and scope compactly. This is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 large sibling set, the description lacks critical context: it does not indicate the relationship to sigma_add_connection_grant, how to obtain a valid connection_id, or any caveats about listing grants. An output schema exists, which helps with return values, but the one-line description is too sparse for confident selection and 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 input schema has one required parameter, connection_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'on a connection' implicitly ties connection_id to the target, but it does not explain the expected format, how to find the connection ID, or any constraints. Minimal compensation for low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'permission grants on a connection'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sigma_list_connections (which lists connections themselves) and sigma_add_connection_grant (which creates grants), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 relative to alternatives such as sigma_add_connection_grant or sigma_get_connection. There is no mention of using connection_id from sigma_list_connections, nor any exclusions or situational context. The only implied usage is by the name itself.

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