list_user_consents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavior like pagination, empty results, or error handling. A read operation is implied but not confirmed, and no side effects are mentioned.

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?

The description is extremely concise (4 words) with no fluff. However, it is so brief that it lacks potentially useful context. It is front-loaded but might be too minimal for agent understanding.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should hint at the response structure (e.g., list of consent objects). The description is incomplete for a list tool, as it does not clarify what information is returned or any filtering beyond user and realm.

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 100% with both 'realm' and 'user_id' having descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 'List consents granted by a user' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (consents) for a specific user. However, it does not differentiate it from other list tools or specify the scope of consents, though sibling tools like 'revoke_user_consent' imply the resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context such as using it to review consents before revocation or combine with other user management tools. The presence of 'revoke_user_consent' suggests a complementary pair but is not explicitly described.

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