sigma_list_workspace_grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether inherited grants are included, pagination, authorization needs), but it does not contradict the annotations. Minimal extra value is provided.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose in minimal words.

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?

This simple list tool has one obvious parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description is sufficient for the tool's low complexity, though it could mention scope behaviors like 'all grants' or note any limitations. The output schema likely covers return structure, so no further detail is required.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain workspace_id beyond its name, which is already evident from the schema. The single parameter is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic meaning or format details.

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') and identifies the resource ('permission grants') and scope ('workspace'), making its purpose clear. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like sigma_list_workbook_grants and sigma_list_connection_grants by specifying 'workspace'.

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 implies the tool is for listing workspace-level grants, but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives (e.g., sigma_list_grants or sigma_list_workbook_grants). No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, so usage context is only implied.

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