List client protocol mappers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds that it does not modify Keycloak, aggregates mappers, and returns 'Client not found.' when no match, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Well-structured with clear purpose, usage hint, and return value note. Slightly more verbose than necessary but no wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema, but description specifies return format (JSON array or 'Client not found.' text) and explains aggregation across client and scopes. Provides sufficient context for an agent to understand behavior and error cases.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter (clientId), already explaining it's an internal UUID and required. Description does not add extra parameter details; baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists protocol mappers for a single client, aggregated across client and scopes. Verb 'lists' and resource 'protocol mappers' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like keycloak_client_default_scopes_get.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use (inspect token shaping), and suggests an alternative sibling (keycloak_client_default_scopes_get) for finding scopes. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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