List OAuth Grants

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it explains that revoked grants are included and how to detect them via a non-null revoked_at field. It also lists the key output fields (client name, scopes, creation date), providing richer context than the annotation 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, starting with the main action in the first sentence and then providing necessary behavioral and output details. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 low-complexity list tool with a comprehensive schema and a read-only annotation, this description is complete. It covers the important aspects: what the tool lists, the active/revoked distinction, the fields returned, and guidance for the agent's response. No output schema is present, so the description appropriately covers return values.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, including constraints and mutual exclusivity for 'after' and 'before.' The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies given the high schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List OAuth grants for the team — the apps authorized to act on the team's behalf.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like revoke-oauth-grant, which performs a different mutation.

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 description provides useful context by noting that all grants (active and revoked) are returned, implying the agent may need to filter for active ones. It also gives a direct interaction guideline: 'Don't bother telling the user the IDs unless they ask for them.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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