Workbooks List Workbook Grants

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it auto-paginates through to the last page, so the caller gets a complete result set without manual paging loops, and it normalizes the response shape (nextPage null / hasMore false). That is meaningful disclosure that the readOnly/destructive annotations do not cover.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the pagination sentence is dense with backtick-quoted field names and redundant phrasing ('``total`` when Sigma sends it (Sigma's value)', '``hasMore`` false where Sigma sends it'). It earns its place semantically but could be tightened considerably.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not document return fields, and with annotations covering the safety profile, the main remaining obligation is behavioral context, which the pagination disclosure supplies. Only the undocumented workbook_id and lack of routing guidance keep it from being fully complete.

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 single parameter workbook_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains its format or sourcing (e.g., where to obtain the workbook ID). The meaning is largely inferable from the tool name and the resource being listed, so it is adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List permission grants on a workbook.' That distinguishes it from the mutating siblings (workbooks_grant_workbook_access, workbooks_delete_workbook_grant), though it never names them explicitly. An agent can identify it, but the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the grant/delete siblings or the admin-level grant listing tools. The purpose is implied by the verb, but nothing tells the agent when this is the right tool versus another grant-listing tool.

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