list_client_scope_mappers_by_protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action, without disclosing pagination, sorting, authentication needs, or the exact behavior of the protocol filter (e.g., exact match, case sensitivity). For a listing tool without annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentence that conveys the essential information without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description lacks information about the output format or what fields are returned for each mapper. While the tool is simple, the absence of output schema means the description should at least hint at the return structure. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter (realm, client_scope_id, protocol). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 (List), the resource (protocol mappers for a client scope), and the filtering criterion (by protocol). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_client_scope_protocol_mappers (which likely lists all mappers) and list_client_mappers_by_protocol (for client, not client scope).

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?

The description implies usage for client scope mappers filtered by protocol, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or scenarios where it is not appropriate.

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