gateway_admin_list_access

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly does not repeat that. It adds valuable context: the tool is 'DB-backed' (indicating the data source) and requires 'access:read' permission, which is a specific behavioral constraint not covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List DB-backed GatewayMCP scope and resource grants') and then states the permission requirement. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return format is defined elsewhere) and annotations cover read-only behavior, the description is mostly complete for a simple list operation. However, the lack of parameter explanations and the absence of any mention of filtering or pagination (e.g., how limit works) leaves a gap for effective invocation. It is adequate but not thorough.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the five parameters (limit, system, subject_key, subject_type, include_revoked). Since the schema lacks descriptions and the description does not compensate, agents are left guessing about parameter semantics. The description should have at least hinted at the filter semantics (e.g., that subject_key/type filter grants).

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('DB-backed GatewayMCP scope and resource grants'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gateway_admin_list_access_packages (which lists access packages) and gateway_admin_explain_access (which explains access). It is unambiguous and immediately identifies the tool's function.

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 a clear context ('List grants') and mentions the permission requirement ('Requires access:read'), which implies it should be used when you need to view grants and have that permission. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., gateway_admin_list_access_packages, gateway_admin_explain_access) or mention exclusions. The usage is implied but not fully elaborated.

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