Grant List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states whether the tool is read-only, whether it mutates state, whose grants are returned (no parameters exist to identify a person), or what permissions are required. It hints at output shape ('one per line') but that is already covered by the output schema and is not enough for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy. The most important information (that this lists all grants/routes) is buried behind vague phrasing instead of being front-loaded.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description leaves core questions unanswered: what a 'route' is, what 'always asked' refers to, and whose grants are involved when no parameters exist. For a zero-parameter list tool, it should at minimum clarify the scope and relationship to grant_check/grant_add/grant_drop.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for this case is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, which is appropriate given the empty 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?

The description gestures at the resource ('standing grants and routes') but has no clear verb and uses opaque phrasing ('where the file is and what is always asked') that an agent cannot map to a concrete concept. It does not distinguish this listing operation from sibling grant_check, grant_add, or grant_drop beyond the tool name.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus grant_check (single lookup) or grant_add/grant_drop. An agent has to infer from the name alone that this is the enumeration variant, and nothing in the text confirms or excludes any usage scenario.

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