keycloak_evaluate_client_scopes

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by stating the evaluation happens 'without logging anyone in' and that it simulates what token a client would issue. This clarifies the non-destructive, simulation-like nature of the operation and does not contradict the annotation.

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. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second sentence explains the practical use case. Information is efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description still communicates that the tool returns an access token/JWT and that it is for diagnosing claims. It does not detail optional parameter interactions, but the schema covers those. Overall, the description is complete enough for a read-only evaluation tool.

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 75%, so most parameter meaning is already in the schema. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but the required clientUuid is self-explanatory and the remaining optional parameters are documented in the input schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate the access token a client would actually issue.' It also frames the tool's diagnostic purpose ('why is this claim missing from my JWT?'), which helps an agent distinguish it from the many read-only Keycloak sibling tools.

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 a clear usage context: use this when investigating missing JWT claims. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the diagnostic framing is enough to route an agent appropriately.

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