keycloak_get_client

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no mutation, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond it: the secret is redacted, and the response includes flows, redirect URIs, web origins, and attributes. It does not discuss errors or response shape, but for a simple read action the added transparency is strong.

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, and the most important distinction (secret redaction, use the sibling tool) is placed near the end without wasted wording. Every sentence contributes value.

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 only two parameters, a rich schema for clientUuid, and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers what the tool returns, what is omitted (secret), and where to go for that omitted piece. No output schema is present, but the description gives enough for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description itself adds no extra parameter-level meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a client's full configuration'), and names the exact content areas: flows, redirect URIs, web origins, and attributes including token lifespans. It also distinguishes itself from keycloak_get_client_secret by explicitly noting the secret is redacted here.

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 when/not: use this tool for the full client configuration; if the secret is needed, use keycloak_get_client_secret instead. This is an explicit alternative and a clear boundary for the most likely confusion with a sibling tool.

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