List authorization policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description only restates the listing action without adding behavioral details such as error handling, pagination, or output format. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal extra value.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, every word is necessary.

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 list operation with one parameter, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks information about the parameter (no format or source) and does not mention what the response contains. Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at the output structure.

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 only parameter, clientId, has no description in the input schema (0% coverage). The tool description implies that clientId refers to a client, but does not explain what it is (e.g., ID or name) or how to obtain it. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate the parameter.

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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (authorization-services policies) for a client. It distinguishes from siblings like keycloak_authz_permissions_list and keycloak_authz_resources_list, but could be more explicit about the clientId requirement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for permissions or resources, other tools should be used. The sibling list is provided externally, but the description itself lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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