keycloak_get_identity_provider

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the non-destructive nature; the description adds value by disclosing the client secret is redacted and by summarizing the response contents. This tells the agent what kind of data to expect beyond what annotations alone convey. It does not contradict any 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists concrete config categories, and adds the redaction caveat without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes useful information.

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 2-parameter read operation with a read-only annotation and well-documented schema, the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns (full config, key categories, redacted secret). Minor gaps include error behavior for unknown aliases and any permission requirements, but these do not significantly hinder correct invocation.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema: alias is explained as the unique identity provider key, and realm is noted as defaulting to the server's configured realm. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.

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 states a clear, specific operation: retrieving one identity provider's full config, and enumerates what the config contains (endpoints, trust settings, sync mode). The singular 'one' clearly differentiates this from the sibling list_identity_providers tool. It also notes the client secret is redacted, adding an important purpose-level detail.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention that this is the tool to use when a single identity provider's config is needed as opposed to listing providers, nor does it identify any alternative tool.

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