Get a user federation provider

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., permissions or what happens on missing ID). It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence. It is concise but lacks a structured format (e.g., separate sections). Every word is necessary, but it could benefit from additional details in a compact form.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete. However, it does not mention the return value (the provider object) or error cases (e.g., not found). Annotations cover safety, but additional context would improve completeness.

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 schema has 1 parameter (id) with 0% description coverage. The description says 'by id' but does not explain what the id represents (e.g., UUID, name) or expected format. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Fetch a user federation provider by id.' It uses a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('user federation provider') and mentions the key identifier ('by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like keycloak_federation_list or keycloak_federation_sync.

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 implicitly indicates when to use it (when you need a specific provider by ID) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like listing first. It lacks before/after context.

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