keycloak_list_clients

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating what the response contains (`id` and `clientId`), which is valuable for downstream tool orchestration, though it does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination limits or authentication requirements—though those are partially covered by the schema.

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 two focused sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then adds a practical clarification about the two identifier fields, which is exactly the kind of information an agent needs.

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?

The schema fully documents all optional parameters, and the description adds the important `id` vs `clientId` distinction needed for chaining into other client tools. Despite having no output schema, the description adequately signals the return content. A small gap is the absence of explicit mention of pagination or result ordering, but the schema covers the pagination parameters.

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% for all 6 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List the realm's clients (applications)." It clearly identifies what is returned and explains the distinction between `id` and `clientId`, which also helps differentiate this list operation from sibling tools like keycloak_get_client.

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 signals when to use this tool by noting that `id` is "the UUID every other client tool needs," making it the natural lookup step before calling related client tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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