List tool connection grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board'), which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not discuss error conditions (e.g., invalid connectionId) or return value structure (though output schema exists).

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 very concise, using two sentences. The first repeats the title (acceptable), and the second provides HTTP details. No unnecessary words. However, the first sentence could be more informative rather than repeating the title.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema exists, annotations cover safety), the description is fairly complete. It states the purpose and provides the HTTP path and auth class. It lacks some context about what the output represents, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it meets the needs for a straightforward read operation.

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 has one parameter (path object with connectionId) with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates slightly by showing the URL pattern, which implies connectionId is required and used as a path parameter. This adds modest meaning beyond the raw schema, but does not explain the parameter structure or validation rules.

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 action ('List tool connection grants') and the resource. The title reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like pc_post_tool_connections_by_connection_id_grants_installations or pc_delete_tool_connections_by_connection_id_grants_by_grant_id, though the verb 'list' implies a read-only operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or contrast with other grant-related tools. This is a notable gap, especially given the large number of sibling tools.

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