list_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only scope and that all configured clients are returned, but it does not mention output shape, pagination, or whether sensitive fields like secrets are included. Acceptable for a minimal zero-parameter list tool, but still thin.

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 no filler, front-loading the verb and object. Everything included is relevant and nothing needs to be trimmed.

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?

This is a simple zero-input tool, and the description is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could add output shape or pagination notes, but those are secondary for such a low-complexity operation, especially with no output schema to complement it.

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?

There are no parameters, so there is nothing extra to explain. The base level for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate, and the 'all' language correctly signals an unfiltered global operation rather than a target-specific lookup.

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?

Description uses a specific imperative verb ('List') with a clear object ('all configured OAuth clients') and scope ('all configured'). This distinguishes it from get_client for single-client lookups and from create/update/delete_client mutations among siblings.

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 implied: an agent would use this when it needs the full set of configured OAuth clients. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over get_client or list_users, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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