keycloak_get_events_config

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds useful context about what the config response covers (enabled flag, event types, retention). However, it does not disclose the return format or value units, and the diagnostic framing adds context rather than deep behavioral detail. Consistent with the annotated-read baseline, 3 is appropriate.

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 zero waste: the first states the tool's purpose and content, the second provides diagnostic guidance. Both sentences earn their place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool — one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects, read-only annotation — the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the lack of any indication of the response shape or retention value format, which is minor for a simple diagnostic config read.

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% — the 'realm' parameter is already described in the schema ('Defaults to the server's configured realm (KEYCLOAK_REALM)'). The description adds no additional parameter nuance, so the 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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Show whether event logging is enabled for the realm, which event types are recorded, and how long they are kept.' It enumerates exactly what the tool reveals (enabled state, event types, retention duration) and clearly distinguishes itself from the event-listing siblings (keycloak_list_events, keycloak_list_admin_event) by covering configuration rather than event data.

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?

'Check this first if the event tools come back empty' provides an explicit, actionable trigger condition that routes the agent to this tool as a diagnostic first step. It falls short of naming the specific alternative tools or stating when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a competent agent to select correctly.

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