List client protocol mappers

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

The description does not add behavioral context beyond what is already provided by the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It does not disclose pagination, filtering, or return format behavior. Since annotations already cover safety, the description contributes no extra insight.

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 wasted words, but it is overly minimal. It conveys the basic purpose but omits parameter details. It could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and parameter descriptions, the tool is not fully specified. The agent may not understand what constitutes a protocol mapper or how to identify a client. The description does not compensate for the simple schema.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'clientId', and the tool description does not explain what clientId refers to, its format, or how to obtain it. The agent lacks essential context to correctly populate this 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 'List a client's protocol mappers' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (client protocol mappers). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like keycloak_client_list or keycloak_idp_mappers_list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to list mappers vs. list clients or IDP mappers. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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