uc_grants_get

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: true). It confirms the tool is read-only ('Get') and provides the API endpoint, but does not disclose additional traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or return format nuances. Annotations already declared safety, so the description does not need to repeat that, but it could add value with more context.

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: one sentence stating the purpose followed by the API endpoint. Every word contributes to clarity, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action.

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's simplicity, presence of an output schema, and full parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is complete. It covers the core functionality without needing to explain return values or additional details.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the input schema, which already has full coverage (100%) for both parameters 'securable_type' and 'full_name'. The schema descriptions are sufficient, so the description's lack of parameter detail is acceptable.

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 tool retrieves effective permissions on a securable, with the specific verb 'Get' and the resource type. It includes the API endpoint and is distinct from the sibling 'uc_grants_update'.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use it over other permissions-related tools like 'permissions_get' or 'uc_grants_update'. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but no when-not-to-use or context is given.

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