List project model grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the default result ordering (created_at desc, id desc). However, it omits pagination behavior even though a cursor parameter exists, so the added value is thin.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, but it is misprioritized: the one sentence spent on ordering should have been spent on purpose and when-to-use first. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 6-parameter paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers only ordering. It says nothing about what a model grant is, how pagination/limit interact, or what the returned items contain, leaving the agent to reconstruct behavior from sibling tools and schema alone.

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%, and the description gives no parameter semantics at all. It does not explain the name glob, the sort enum values, the limit/page-size behavior, or the cursor round-trip, so the ~third of undocumented parameters remain unaddressed and no meaning is added beyond the 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 never states what the tool does; it only describes ordering of returned items. The name and title carry the purpose ('List project model grants'), so an agent can infer it, but the description text itself adds no purpose statement and does not distinguish this list tool from siblings like grant_machines_list or grant_secrets_list.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of related tools (grant_models_add, grant_models_edit, grant_models_delete), and no note about prerequisites such as the required orgID/projectID scope. The only content is a sorting statement, which is not usage guidance.

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