list_auth_oauth_native_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a read-only retrieval of configuration parameters, but it does not disclose additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, whether any setup is required, or what happens if the config is unavailable.

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 description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter configuration endpoint.

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 input schema fields and an output schema provided, the description sufficiently explains the tool's role for an agent. It communicates the exact deliverable ('parameters needed to build an OIDC authorization request'), making the tool easy to select among many auth-related siblings.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description clarifies that the output is the parameter set needed for OIDC authorization, which sufficiently captures the endpoint's purpose without requiring param-level documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('parameters a native client needs to build its own OIDC authorization request'). This distinguishes it from sibling auth endpoints like list_auth_oauth or create_auth_oauth_native_token.

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 identifies when the tool is relevant: when a native client needs to construct its own OIDC authorization request. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling auth tools.

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