keycloak_get_client_installation_config

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is covered by structured metadata. The description adds useful context by stating the output is a ready-to-use adapter config with credentials, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like response format or whether credentials are sensitive. This is acceptable given the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main function is front-loaded, the output format is named, and the added use-case sentence 'Handy for wiring an app up to this client' earns its place by giving the agent actionable context.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with one required parameter and complete schema documentation. There is no output schema, but the description explains what the output is and what it contains. The combination of description, schema, and readOnly annotation is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 already documents both `realm` and `clientUuid`. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema's parameter descriptions are already complete, including the warning that `clientUuid` is the UUID and not the human-facing clientId.

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 specifies a concrete verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('ready-to-use adapter config (keycloak.json)'), and the contents of that resource (issuer URL, realm, credentials). This is distinct from sibling tools like keycloak_get_client or keycloak_get_client_secret, and the phrase 'adapter config' uniquely identifies this tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'Handy for wiring an app up to this client' provides a clear use-case context, implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from alternatives such as keycloak_get_client_secret or state when it should not be used, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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