list_client_optional_scopes

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

The description only says 'list,' implying a read-only operation, but no annotations are present to confirm this. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the implicit read intent. No mention of permissions, side effects, or response characteristics is made.

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 of six words, which is concise. However, it essentially restates the tool name and does not add substantive information; it barely earns its place. A more informative description would be justified.

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 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description should still provide context like typical use cases or return value expectations. It lacks guidance on the scope of results or any filtering behavior, which is insufficient for an agent to use it effectively among many similar tools.

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 full coverage (100%), with descriptions for both 'realm' and 'client_uuid.' The tool description adds no extra meaning to these parameters beyond what the schema already provides. 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 states 'List optional client scopes for a client,' which clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (optional client scopes). It differentiates from siblings like 'list_client_default_scopes' by specifying 'optional.' However, it largely restates the tool name, adding minimal new context.

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 (e.g., list_client_default_scopes, list_client_scopes). The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as the need for a valid realm and client UUID, or situations where this tool is preferred over others.

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