keycloak_list_client_scopes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful domain context about client scopes. It does not add behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, filtering, or return shape, but none are required for a simple read-only list given the 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 with no wasted words: the first states the action, the second explains the domain concept. The key action is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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, one-parameter list operation, the description is sufficiently complete. It lacks explicit notes on return values or pagination, and does not route to sibling tools, but the annotation and simple schema cover the main safety and parameter concerns.

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 schema documents the only parameter (realm) with 100% coverage, including its default behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the realm's client scopes.' This clearly distinguishes it from single-scope retrieval or scope evaluation siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus keycloak_get_client_scope, keycloak_get_client_assigned_scopes, or keycloak_evaluate_client_scopes. The conceptual explanation implies relevance to token claims but does not state a selection rule.

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