List skill grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The one sentence adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — the default ordering (created_at desc, then id desc) — which is not stated in the schema. It says nothing about pagination behavior, result size, or what a grant record contains, so credit is limited.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, so there is no bloat. However, it is not front-loaded: the sentence leads with an output detail rather than establishing what the tool is, which is the opposite of appropriate structure for a tool description.

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?

A six-parameter, two-required listing tool with no output schema needs at minimum a purpose statement and scoping context; neither is present. The description is not misleading, but it is far too thin for a tool whose siblings supply four near-identical grant lists.

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 two undocumented properties are the required scoping keys orgID and skillID, which carry no description in the schema or the description. The description also never clarifies that sort overrides the stated default ordering, so it does not 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 — no verb, no resource, no scope. It only describes result ordering, which is a tautological supplement to the name/title rather than a statement of purpose. An agent must infer 'lists grants of a skill to something' purely from 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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite close siblings grant_skills_add, grant_skills_delete, and the parallel grant_machines_list / grant_models_list / grant_secrets_list / grant_pools_list tools. Nothing tells the agent when this list is the right call.

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