realm_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the operation as [READ] and describes the settings it retrieves, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose output format, error behavior, or any potential side effects. This is adequate for a read tool but not highly transparent.

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. The [READ] prefix immediately signals the operation, the purpose is stated in one line, and the argument documentation is clear. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the tool's function and parameter semantics. It could be improved by specifying the return format or typical error cases, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the 'target' parameter, but the description's 'Args: target: IdP target name from config; omit for the default' adds clear meaning. It explains the parameter's purpose and default behavior, effectively compensating for the 0% schema description 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 reads realm/instance settings related to identity hygiene, listing specific categories (brute-force protection, password policy, OTP policy, registration). The [READ] prefix indicates the verb, and the resource is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like identity_overview, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains what it does but does not mention alternative tools, exclusion criteria, or prerequisites. The argument documentation is present but only explains the parameter, not when to invoke the tool.

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