list_oauth_clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds real value beyond that by clarifying these are PUBLIC PKCE clients, i.e. no client secrets are exposed, and that results are filtered to the calling user's ownership. It says nothing about pagination, empty results, or whether disabled/deleted clients appear.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core identity of the resource is front-loaded before the qualifying detail about PKCE clients. Every clause earns its place.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description says what is listed but not what a returned record looks like (fields such as client ID, name, creation date, status). That is the main remaining gap for an agent that must decide whether the response contains what it needs.

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, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is no parameter meaning the description needs to compensate for.

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 gives a specific verb ("List") and a precisely scoped resource ("self-serve OAuth developer clients owned by the user"), then defines them further as public PKCE clients for third-party integrations. The scope qualifier "owned by the user" plus "self-serve" implicitly separates this from the manage_oauth_client sibling, though it never names that alternative.

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?

The read-only listing nature of the tool implies when it is appropriate, and the "owned by the user" scoping tells the agent this is a personal-scope enumeration. There is no explicit statement about when to use this versus manage_oauth_client, nor any mention of auth or account prerequisites.

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