list_oauth_clients

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

Annotations already mark readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it discloses that NO SECRETS are returned, states the row fields (`is_active`, `scope_codenames`, `ip_allowlist`), explicitly says the endpoint is not paginated, and lists required auth scopes (`clients:read`, `admin`). This materially shapes agent expectations about the response and access requirements.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the purpose is front-loaded, use cases follow, then return-field details, a caveat about secrets, pagination behavior, and auth requirements. The structure is logical, scannable, and contains no 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 zero-parameter read tool with output schema present, the description is complete: it states what is returned, what is not returned, pagination behavior, and required permissions. There is no gap an agent needs to call or interpret this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document parameters, and it compensates by describing what each returned row carries, which is the only input-relevant semantics an agent needs here.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'List the organization's API clients' and explains what the data means ('who can reach this API and how'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling create/update tools by framing itself as the audit tool that 'can create a client but cannot show you what exists.'

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?

Provides concrete use cases: 'find credentials nobody remembers issuing' and 'check what a client is scoped to before trusting it.' It also contrasts with creation capabilities and warns about the no-secret-readback limitation, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate versus looking for a secret-returning endpoint that does not exist.

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