list_client_default_scopes

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and resource, omitting any details about side effects, authorization needs, or response format. For a read operation, at minimum it should imply safety, but it does not go beyond the basic purpose.

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 sentence and is concise, but it is too minimal. It lacks context that could be added without much verbosity, such as distinguishing from sibling tools or clarifying defaults.

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 context of sibling tools like 'list_client_scopes' and 'list_default_default_client_scopes', the description does not sufficiently differentiate this tool. It also lacks information about output or behavior, leaving ambiguity about what 'default client scopes' means specifically for a client versus a realm.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are adequately described in the schema ('Realm name', 'Client UUID'). The description adds no additional semantic value, so the 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 'List default client scopes for a client.' clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'default client scopes for a client'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_client_scopes' (which likely lists all scopes) or 'list_default_default_client_scopes' (which may list realm-wide defaults), so it loses one point.

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. For example, it does not explain when to use 'list_client_default_scopes' instead of 'list_client_scopes' or 'list_default_default_client_scopes'. This is a significant gap.

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