oauth_list_clients

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds valuable security context by noting 'excluding secrets' in the returned data, which is critical behavioral information. However, it lacks disclosure on whether this is read-only, any rate limiting, pagination behavior, or required authorization scope.

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?

Three clear sentences with minimal waste. The first states the action, the second notes the security-relevant exclusion of secrets, and the third documents the return type. Slight redundancy between sentence 1 and 3 (both mention the return), but overall efficient.

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 simple 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic return structure ('Dict with list of clients') and field exclusions. However, it lacks mention of pagination, sorting, or any filtering limitations that might exist for large client lists.

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 (empty properties object), which per rubric guidelines defaults to a baseline score of 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.

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 'List all registered OAuth clients' with specific verb (List) and resource (OAuth clients). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like oauth_get_client_info (single retrieval), oauth_register_client (creation), and oauth_revoke_client (deletion) through the 'List all' phrasing.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the naming convention makes the distinction somewhat clear, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over oauth_get_client_info for specific lookups or mention any prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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