list_granted_consents

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It does add value by specifying that only currently effective grants are returned and by breaking the results into token vs. permanent vs. tracked-identity categories, which implies read-only behavior. However it never states that nothing is mutated, what an empty result means, or any permission requirements for viewing the list.

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 the purpose front-loaded in the bracketed header followed by the returned categories. Slight redundancy between the header and the body, but nothing extraneous.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers what the result contains well enough to call it correctly. Only the read-only nature and empty-result semantics are left implicit, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool applies.

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 gives a specific verb (list/query) plus resource (currently granted consents) and enumerates the three entry types returned: single-use permission tokens, per-course permanent permission lists, and tracked course identities. It distinguishes itself from the request_/revoke_ siblings by being the read/audit view, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to inspect existing authorizations before requesting or revoking. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of how it differs from the neighboring get_user_permissions, and no preconditions given.

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