oauth_list_clients

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that secrets are excluded from results, which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about read-only nature, required auth/permissions, pagination, or result ordering for a tool that enumerates registered credentials.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, and the secret-exclusion note earns its place. The trailing "Returns: Dict with list of clients" restates what the existing output schema already provides and could be dropped.

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?

With an output schema present and zero parameters, the description need not explain return shapes, and the secret-exclusion caveat covers the one surprising aspect of the data. Only the absence of any routing hint toward oauth_get_client_info keeps it short of 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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing further to document. The description correctly implies a no-argument, enumerate-everything call rather than suggesting filters.

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?

"List all registered OAuth clients" names a specific verb (list) and resource (OAuth clients) with the scope "all registered". That scope implicitly separates it from oauth_get_client_info, but the description never names or contrasts the sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 by the word "List" and the "all" scope; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus oauth_get_client_info or openpanel_list_clients, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. An agent can guess the intent, but nothing routes it confidently.

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