sigma_list_workbook_grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, filtering scope, or how grants are represented beyond what the output schema might show.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and contains zero fluff. It is perfectly concise for the purpose it conveys.

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?

While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks usage guidelines and parameter details. Given the large sibling list with similar grant-listing tools, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent and ensure correct selection and 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 parameter (workbook_id) with no description, and the overall schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'workbook_id' is, how to obtain it, or any format requirements, leaving the agent without necessary parameter understanding.

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 'List permission grants on a workbook.' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (permission grants on a workbook). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sigma_list_workspace_grants and sigma_list_connection_grants by specifying 'workbook' as the object.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sigma_list_grants or sigma_list_workspace_grants. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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