client_misconfig_audit

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the per-client riskScore-plus-evidence-plus-actions shape and, critically, that inputsTruncated=true signals a clipped list — warning the agent that a clean result over a truncated estate is misleading. It does not cover pagination or auth prerequisites.

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?

Front-loads the risk taxonomy, then the args, then the truncation caveat — logical ordering with little waste. The truncation warning is slightly verbose but earns its place given how easily it prevents a false-clean conclusion.

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-output-schema audit tool, it discloses the return shape (riskScore, evidence, actions) and the truncation sentinel. What it omits — auth/preconditions and how risk findings should be acted on — are secondary for a read-only audit.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain target ('IdP target name from config; omit for the default'), which the schema does not, but for max_clients it largely restates the schema default (200) without explaining the truncation trade-off it drives. Partial compensation.

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?

States a specific verb (audit) and resource (OAuth/OIDC client misconfig) and enumerates the exact risk classes checked (wildcard/http redirect URIs, public clients with secrets, implicit flow, missing PKCE, password grant). This clearly distinguishes it from raw-listing siblings like list_clients and client_detail.

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 '[READ]' tag and the risk-framing imply this is the config-hygiene audit path, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., 'use stale_access_audit for token age, list_clients for raw inventory'). Usage is inferable from the risk categories rather than stated.

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