keycloak_auth_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile; the description adds meaningful context beyond it: the tool verifies live credential validity, reports realm/account identity and write capability, and exposes remediation details ('exactly what to set'). It stops short of disclosing the failure mode when the Keycloak server itself is unreachable, which would make it fully transparent.

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 zero filler: the first front-loads the verb, resource, and enumerated report contents; the second adds the usage trigger and diagnostic interpretation. Every clause earns its place, and the key discriminating information appears first.

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 0-parameter, readOnly-annotated diagnostics tool with no output schema, the description covers what it reports, when to call it, and how to interpret its availability. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 per the rubric the baseline of 4 applies — there is nothing the description must explain. The description correctly invents no parameters or flags, and the 100% schema coverage is trivially vacuous for an empty properties object.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Report whether this server has working Keycloak credentials') and enumerates the exact outputs: realm, acting account, write-enablement, and remediation guidance. It distinguishes itself from all 47 siblings, notably keycloak_whoami (current user identity), since no other tool reports auth configuration health.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this first when a tool you expected is not listed.' It also teaches the agent how to interpret the result — an absent tool means missing configuration rather than a bug — which directly selects this diagnostic over the get/list siblings and guides the next action.

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