keycloak_list_protocol_mappers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds useful conceptual context about what a protocol mapper is, but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as return format or pagination. With annotation coverage, this sits at a solid baseline.

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 filler; the first sentence states the operation and target, and the second briefly explains why mappers matter. The definition is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The target (client or client scope), the purpose, and the relevant parameter relationships are all represented either in the description or the input schema. The absence of an output schema is not critical because the result is naturally the list of mappers.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, including the OR relationship between scopId and clientUuid, so the schema carries the operational meaning. The description's 'client or client scope' phrase roughly mirrors those parameters but adds no new detail about realm defaults, UUID formats, or mutual exclusivity beyond what the schema already states.

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 pairs: 'List the protocol mappers on a client or on a client scope.' It states exactly what the tool returns and explains the domain concept (mappers add claims to a token), which makes the purpose unambiguous. The word 'protocol' also distinguishes it from the sibling keycloak_list_identity_provider_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 usage context is implied by describing the resource and target ('on a client or on a client scope'), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as identity provider mappers. An agent can infer when to call it, but the definition does not explicitly route the decision.

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