List clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait—client secrets are not included in the response. However, it does not address other behavioral aspects such as read-only guarantees, permission requirements, pagination, or how filtering works beyond the schema.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a useful caveat without redundancy or excessive length.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the scope and an important output exclusion. It is sufficient for a straightforward client listing operation, though it could be slightly richer in explaining what the returned objects look 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%, meaning both 'realm' and 'clientId' are already documented in the schema. The description provides no additional parameter-level insight. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema handles the semantic load.

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 and resource: 'List OAuth/OIDC clients configured in a realm.' It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on clients rather than realms, users, roles, or groups. The additional note about client secrets reinforces exactly what this tool does and does not return.

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 context is clear: this tool is for listing OAuth/OIDC clients within a realm, which distinguishes it from sibling realm/user/group tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls shy of a full 5.

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