oauth2_clients_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get details' implies a read operation, which is accurate for a GET endpoint. However, it doesn't disclose what error behavior occurs for invalid/nonexistent UUIDs, whether any permissions are required, or what specific detail fields are returned. Without annotations, this is a minimal but not rich 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?

A single sentence that is perfectly concise, front-loaded with the verb 'Get details', and contains zero wasted words. It fully covers the tool's purpose in minimal space.

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 single-parameter GET tool with a clear sibling (oauth2_clients_list), the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, there's no mention of what details are returned (scopes, redirect URIs, client secret, status, etc.) or whether the result includes sensitive fields. For such a lightweight tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 the single 'uuid' parameter described as 'OAuth2 app UUID'. The description says 'by its UUID' which reinforces the parameter's meaning. Since schema coverage is complete at 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify UUID format (e.g., standard UUIDv4) or where to obtain it.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific OAuth2 application' with its identifier 'by its UUID'. It distinguishes the purpose adequately from siblings like oauth2_clients_list (which lists) and oauth2_clients_create/update/revoke/rotate_secret (which mutate). Loses a point because it doesn't explicitly name the alternative sibling tools, though the phrasing is clear enough.

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 use when you need details of a specific OAuth2 app given a UUID. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs oauth2_clients_list or when not to use it. With a single existing sibling (oauth2_clients_list for listing and scopes for scopes), the context is reasonably inferable but not explicitly articulated.

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