keycloak_list_realms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently treats this as a read operation. It adds the behavioral nuance that results are scoped to the token's visibility, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, ordering, or potential size aside from what the parameter schema already warns about. This is adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word adds meaning. The parameter description in the schema is equally economical while conveying the key operational caution.

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 one optional, fully documented parameter, the definition gives enough to call it correctly and to avoid flooding context by keeping briefRepresentation=true. A brief note on pagination or explicit return type would fully close the gap, but nothing essential is missing for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single parameter briefRepresentation is fully documented with a default value and a clear usage warning about context flooding. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the expected baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Clearly states the action (List) and resource (realms), and adds a valuable scoping qualifier ('this token can see') that distinguishes it from singular-fetch tools like keycloak_get_realm. The verb+resource pair is unambiguous even within a large sibling set.

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 enumeration of token-accessible realms and gives a useful context cue about authorization scope, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like keycloak_get_realm or when not to use it. Exclusions and alternative routing are left to inference from the tool names.

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