whodb_platform_my_grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by clarifying that the workspace target applies to this call only and does not mutate session defaults, but says nothing about scoping, filters, or result size/pagination.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the targeting caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

Annotations cover safety and the schema fully documents all five parameters, and no output schema exists so return shape need not be described. However, in a sibling set with at least five overlapping access/permissions tools, the description omits the disambiguating context an agent needs to pick this one correctly.

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 100% and the nested workspace object already documents per-call targeting, the session-default fallback chain, and the org/project/host fields. The description largely restates that behavior, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List the signed-in user's hosted resource grants.' An agent can tell what the tool returns, but nothing distinguishes it from closely related siblings such as whodb_platform_resource_permissions, whodb_platform_user_resource_access, or whodb_platform_shared_with_me, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many other access/permission/resource-listing siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent text ('for per-call targeting without changing defaults') describes parameter behavior, not selection guidance.

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