get_client_scope_mappings_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that it gets mappings, without indicating that it is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal disclosure.

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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, so it scores a 4 rather than a 5.

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 large number of sibling tools related to scope mappings, the absence of an output schema, and the lack of context about what 'scope mappings' are or the format of the response, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough information for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior or output.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('Realm name' and 'Client UUID'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema defines, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'all scope mappings for a client', indicating a retrieval operation. However, among siblings there are many similar 'get' tools for specific scope mappings (e.g., get_client_realm_scope_mappings, get_client_scope_scope_mappings), and this description does not differentiate what 'all' entails or how it differs from those.

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. The description does not specify context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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