sigma_list_grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context, only specifying the resource type; it does not disclose details like pagination or grant types, but the output schema fills some gaps. There is no contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in one clear sentence. The second sentence 'Required: inodeId' is redundant with the schema but adds emphasis without unnecessary verbosity.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and required parameter. It lacks comparison with sibling grant-listing tools, but the invocation requirements are clear.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'inodeId' and indicates it is required, tying it to the resource type, but does not explain its format, how to obtain it, or constraints beyond being required. This is partial but insufficient compensation.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'grants for a specific file/workbook/data model by inodeId', making the tool's purpose clear and distinguishable from other grant-related tools. It does not explicitly compare with siblings like sigma_list_workbook_grants, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need grants for a file/workbook/data model and have its inodeId. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the context is unambiguous and not misleading.

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