sysknife_get_sudo_grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so repeating 'read-only' twice adds nothing. The one genuine addition is the scope of what gets listed (only SysKnife-managed sudoers.d drop-ins, not the main sudoers file), but return format and volume are unstated.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the operation and target. It wastes a little space restating 'read-only' at the end after already saying it at the start, and echoing the internal action name adds no value.

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 no-param, read-only list operation with full annotation coverage, the description gives enough to call it correctly and understand the scope of results. It could note what a returned grant entry looks like, since there is no output schema, but 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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly reinforces 'no params', which removes any doubt about needing arguments despite the permissive additionalProperties schema.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (SysKnife-managed sudoers.d drop-ins), which is more precise than the name alone. The 'SysKnife-managed' qualifier scopes the result set and helps distinguish it from generic user/key inspection siblings, though it doesn't name a specific alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'read-only' and 'no params' signal a safe inspection call, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus sysknife_get_authorized_keys or sysknife_list_users, nor any exclusion.

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