List user federation providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true. The description reinforces these by stating it is read-only and idempotent. It adds specific behavioral context: does not modify configuration, returns a JSON array with provider id, name, providerId. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose and examples, second declares safety (read-only/idempotent), third provides usage guidance and output description. Front-loaded with key information. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return format (JSON array with id, name, providerId) and edge case (empty array). Covers all essential aspects: behavior, side effect, use case, 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add parameter info. However, it adds value by describing the output structure and the purpose relative to other tools, which aids understanding.

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 tool lists user federation providers with specific examples (LDAP, Kerberos). It distinguishes itself from siblings like keycloak_federation_get and keycloak_federation_sync by indicating its role in discovery. The verb 'lists' and resource 'user federation providers' are precise.

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?

Explicitly advises users to use this tool to discover providers and obtain their ids before calling keycloak_federation_get for details or keycloak_federation_sync for sync. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and distinguishes from alternatives.

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