List project machine grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful resource semantics beyond that: these grants are the directly deletable kind, while pool-derived access originates elsewhere — context an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation clause second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination behavior (cursor/limit) and no output schema, so return shape is left to inference from the pagination params.

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 67%: name glob, sort enum, limit, and cursor are documented in the schema, while orgID and projectID (both required) carry only patterns. The description says nothing about filtering, sorting, or pagination, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3 for middling coverage.

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 and resource ('Lists explicit machine grants') and qualifies the scope ('that can be deleted directly'), which distinguishes this from pooled machine access. It does not name the sibling tool (grant_pools_list / grant_machines_add) verbatim, so the differentiation is conceptual rather than tool-precise.

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 second sentence routes the agent away from this tool when the access is pool-derived ('managed through project machine pool grants'), giving a clear when-not condition. It never names the alternative tool explicitly, so the agent must map the concept to a sibling name itself.

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