List OAuth2 Client Credentials

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It adds the useful behavioral trait 'metadata only', indicating that actual credential secrets are not returned. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination behavior, permission requirements, or how empty results are handled.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, and scope ('metadata only').

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the metadata-only restriction. However, it omits parameter semantics and does not differentiate from sibling list tools, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 schema has one parameter 'top' with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not mention the parameter or explain that it limits the number of results, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The parameter name and constraints give some hints, but the agent is left without explicit semantics.

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 lists 'deployed OAuth2 Client Credential security artifacts' and specifies 'metadata only', distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other credential types or keystore entries. The verb 'List' and the resource are specific and 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?

Usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_user_credentials or list_keystore_entries. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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