ym_grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate limits). It is adequate but does not enhance understanding beyond 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 extremely concise (6 words) with no wasted words. However, it is overly brief and could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 a single parameter, read-only nature, and presence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the output or any relationships with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 does not explain the counter_id parameter (its meaning, source, or format). It relies entirely on the parameter name, which is insufficient for clear usage.

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 clearly states the action (List) and the resource (access grants for a counter). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ym_counters (list counters) and ym_counter (single counter info). However, it does not explain what 'access grants' are, which could be ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool compared to siblings. No prerequisites or context provided (e.g., needing a counter_id from another tool). The description is too brief to inform usage decisions.

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