whodb_platform_org_sso

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: results exclude client secrets, and the workspace parameter is per-call only and never mutates the session default.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core capability ('list SSO providers, secrets omitted') is front-loaded before the targeting note. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent secrets are stripped from results. However, three schema parameters (team_id, resource_id, resource_type) appear unrelated to listing SSO providers and are left unaddressed, which muddies what the correct call looks like.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents fields, workspace (host/org/project), team_id and resource_id. The description restates the workspace targeting behavior, which is largely redundant with the schema's 'Optional target for this call only', so it lands at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List SSO providers configured for the selected organization', plus a scope qualifier ('without client secrets'). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling org tools like whodb_platform_org_domains or whodb_platform_org_members, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. It implies usage by requiring an organization context, but nothing tells an agent when this tool is the right pick over the other org-scoped listing tools.

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