get_available_client_scope_realm_scope_mappings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly confirm safety, statelessness, or any constraints. While not misleading, it lacks explicit statement of nondestructive nature. Score reflects adequate but minimal transparency.

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-structured sentence. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no superfluous words. Every part earns its place.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly state the return type (e.g., 'list of role mappings'), but the name and action imply a list. For a straightforward read operation, it is sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'realm' and 'client_scope_id'. The description does not add semantic value beyond the schema; it merely reiterates the concepts. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already provides necessary parameter meaning.

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 retrieves realm-level roles available to add to a client scope's scope, using specific verb 'get' and resource 'realm-level roles'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_effective_client_scope_realm_scope_mappings' by emphasizing 'available to add', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools for client scope mappings, there is no explicit context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or when not to use it. The description only states the action without usage direction.

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