Workspace List Workspace Grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value the annotations cannot: the tool auto-follows pagination to the last page, so the agent never loops, and it explains that nextPage is always null and hasMore false as a consequence. It does not cover auth requirements, but the pagination traversal disclosure is substantive.

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 in the first sentence and the remaining text is devoted to the non-obvious pagination contract. The prose is a little dense and repeats 'Sigma's' parentheticals, but every sentence conveys information the agent needs to interpret the response correctly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is optional, yet the description still clarifies the pagination envelope (entries, total, nextPage, hasMore), which is exactly the confusing part. Missing only permission/auth prerequisites and an explicit sibling routing statement for a fully complete definition.

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 carry the load, and it does for two of three parameters: 'page resumes from a nextPage cursor' and 'limit is the page size' give meaning beyond bare types and defaults. workspace_id is left undescribed, which is the only gap; it is relatively self-evident but still undocumented.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List permission grants on a workspace'), which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings workspace_grant_workspace_access and workspace_delete_workspace_grant, and the workspace scoping separates it from workbooks_list_workbook_grants. It does not name any sibling explicitly, 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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope, but the description never states when to use this versus admin_list_grants, workbooks_list_workbook_grants, or datasets_list_connection_grants, nor does it mention preconditions such as required permissions. The pagination notes tell the agent how the tool behaves, not when to choose it.

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