keycloak_get_client_service_account_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a valuable interpretation: the returned user is where admin roles are assigned, which helps the agent understand the result's meaning. However, it doesn't disclose response format, pagination (unlikely for a single object), or behavior when no service account exists. With read-only annotation, the bar is lower, but the description still leaves some behavioral gaps.

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, no filler. The action is stated first, followed by the conceptual why. The role-assignment context earns its place because it explains the tool's purpose and informs the caller of the result's significance.

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 read-only getter with one required parameter and a fully described schema, this is nearly complete. The description states what is returned (a service-account user) and why it matters. There is no output schema, but the return object is implied by the resource type. Minor gaps: no mention of error conditions (e.g., missing service account) or explicit response shape, but these are not critical for a simple fetch by UUID.

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%: both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The clientUuid schema description is exceptionally clear (noting it's the `id` field, not clientId, and pointing to keycloak_list_clients). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, and with high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the service-account user backing a client.' It immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on the service-account user (no other sibling mentions this), and it adds interpretive value by explaining that this user carries the client's admin roles. This gives an agent both the action and the domain significance.

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 provides clear usage context: 'this is the way to check what a client can actually do.' This implies the when-to-use case (determining client permissions) without naming a specific alternative or exclusion condition. It satisfies the 'clear context, no exclusions' level rather than the explicit when/alternatives level.

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