List effective privileges

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the auth requirement (CATALOG READ privilege) and the fallback to CURRENT_USER when grantee is omitted. This is useful situational detail, though no return format is described (but no output schema exists either).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and source, and includes essential permission context. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the action, the source system view, the permission requirement, and the default behavior when grantee is omitted. Sibling context confirms this is a standalone listing tool, and nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter 'grantee' ('Database user to query. Omit for current user.'), providing 100% schema description coverage. The tool description echoes this same information without adding any new semantic details, so the schema carries the full burden.

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's function: 'List effective privileges for a user (or CURRENT_USER if omitted) from SYS.EFFECTIVE_PRIVILEGES.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('effective privileges'), and names the exact system view. This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like hana_list_tables and hana_list_schemas.

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 provides clear operational context by stating the prerequisite ('Requires CATALOG READ privilege or querying own privileges') and explaining the optional grantee behavior (CURRENT_USER if omitted). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, but the context is sufficient for an agent to determine when to use it.

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