List secret grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond structured data: the default result ordering (created_at desc, id desc). It stops there, disclosing nothing about filtering behavior or result shape.

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?

A single sentence with zero padding, and the one fact it conveys is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for its content, though the content itself is thin.

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 paginated list tool with 6 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description omits purpose, filtering semantics, and relationship to the secret being listed. Only the default ordering is covered, which is far from what an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 coverage is only 67%, and two required parameters (orgID, secretID) carry no description anywhere. The description adds nothing about the parameters, and the ordering it mentions is tangential to the 'sort' enum rather than explaining it. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 says 'Items are ordered by created_at descending, then id descending.' The verb+resource ('List secret grants') lives in the title/name, not the description, so the description itself is effectively a restatement of ordering rather than a purpose statement. It does distinguish nothing from the sibling grant_secrets_add/delete.

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 when to prefer this over grant_secrets_add or grant_secrets_delete, and no stated prerequisites. The parent/child relationship to a secret (via required secretID/orgID) is left for the agent to infer from the schema.

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