keycloak_get_client_assigned_scopes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that default scopes are always applied while optional scopes are applied only on request. However, it does not describe the response shape or any other operational behavior, so it adds only moderate value beyond the annotations.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose and immediately communicates the key distinction between default and optional scopes. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only getter, the description conveys the core purpose and output concept. However, without an output schema, more detail about the response structure would help, and clientUuid remains ambiguous to an agent unfamiliar with Keycloak conventions. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 50%. The description does not explain clientUuid beyond the parameter name or add semantics to either parameter. The realm parameter benefits from its schema description, but clientUuid is left underdocumented, and the tool description does not compensate for that gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a resource ('client scopes assigned to a client'), and adds the distinguishing detail that output is split into default and optional scopes. This makes its purpose clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like keycloak_list_client_scopes or keycloak_evaluate_client_scopes.

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: use this when you need to know which scopes are assigned to a client, including the default vs optional distinction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but it gives enough contextual guidance for an agent to select it.

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