keycloak_get_client_secret

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the burden is on the description to disclose risk. It does so clearly: the secret is a live credential, will surface in the conversation, requires elevated permission, and can be gated behind an environment variable. There is no contradiction with the read-only 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 sentences deliver high-value information with no filler. The most safety-critical fact ('CURRENT SECRET IN PLAIN TEXT') is front-loaded, followed by the exposure warning and permission requirement.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is enough to select and invoke it correctly: it states what the tool returns, the risk of using it, the permission needed, and a mitigation option. No critical information 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 input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the crucial clientUuid distinction from clientId and the suggestion to get it from keycloak_list_clients. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the weight; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('confidential client's current secret'), and explicitly notes it is 'IN PLAIN TEXT.' Among the many keycloak_* siblings, this unambiguously identifies the secret-retrieval operation and distinguishes it from generic client getters.

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?

It states the required permission ('Requires manage-clients') and gives a notable warning about the credential appearing in conversation. It also hints at a deployment-level safeguard (KEYCLOAK_ALLOW_WRITES), but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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