get_client

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that the tool returns an allowlist rather than raw client representation, explains that attributes and protocolMappers are omitted to keep credential-shaped data out of output and LLM context, and notes that flow IDs are resolved to aliases. This is far beyond the minimum 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then builds detail in a logical order: output shape, security rationale, domain semantics, and the argument definition. Every sentence adds actionable context rather than repeating schema or title information.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the key selection and invocation facts: what the tool returns, why certain fields are omitted, how flow overrides are presented, and which identifier to pass. The presence of an output schema means the explicit allowlist fields need not be enumerated in prose.

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 only says client_id is a string, but the description adds the crucial distinction: 'The clientId (not the internal UUID).' This prevents a likely mis-invocation and gives the agent exactly the semantic needed for correct lookup.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Show one client's configuration, including its authentication flow overrides.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_clients and get_client_sessions by emphasizing the singular client and the configuration focus.

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 makes the scope clear—'one client's configuration'—which implies this is for retrieving a single client's full config rather than listing clients or sessions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so there is room for sharper routing guidance.

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