keycloak_list_identity_provider_mappers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful context by explaining the nature of the mappers and their role in claim translation. There is no contradiction, and the additional context avoids ambiguity without overpromising behavior.

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?

A single sentence carries the entire definition with no wasted words. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the clarifying clause adds the core concept without bloating the description.

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 read-only listing tool with only two parameters and complete schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting with the client-side protocol mapper listing tool, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 already covers both parameters thoroughly, including the alias semantics and the realm default. The description reinforces that aliases refer to identity providers but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('an identity provider's mappers'), then defines what mappers are: rules translating claims from external IdPs into Keycloak users, roles, and groups. This clearly differentiates the tool from similar listing tools like keycloak_list_protocol_mappers.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs to see identity-provider-level claim translation rules. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as keycloak_list_protocol_mappers or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is useful but not fully explicit.

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