generate_example_userinfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Generate example userinfo' but does not describe side effects (likely read-only), return format, or any constraints. The input parameters are not elaborated upon in the description.

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, well-front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at return value (e.g., what the userinfo contains). It only mentions 'for evaluating client scopes' but omits other context like prerequisites or behavior when parameters are missing.

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 description coverage is 100% with basic parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Realm name', 'Scope to evaluate'). The tool description does not add further semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage but minimal added value.

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 ('Generate'), resource ('example userinfo'), and purpose ('for evaluating client scopes'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_example_access_token and generate_example_id_token, which generate different token types.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generate_example_access_token, generate_example_id_token). The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or conditions for use.

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