oauth2_clients_scopes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: 'Only returns scopes the authenticated user holds' — which signals auth-dependent, filtered output. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or whether results reflect live permission state vs cached data. The one disclosed trait is genuinely useful but thin.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, with the constraining behavioral detail appended. Every word contributes meaning, no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 zero-parameter list/reference tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it lists, how it groups them, and the visibility constraint. The main gap is that it doesn't describe the return format structure (e.g., categories and scope identifiers), but for a lightweight reference tool this is adequate.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (the schema is empty with no properties). With no params to document, the description needs only to explain what the tool returns, which it does well. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate here.

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 ('List'), the resource ('all available permission scopes'), and the grouping behavior ('grouped by category'). It distinguishes from siblings like oauth2_clients_list (list clients) and oauth2_clients_get (single client). The purpose is clear, though naming the sibling alternative explicitly would push it to 5.

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 this is a reference/introspection tool used when granting scopes to OAuth2 applications, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. A clear context is implied from the name and content, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is offered.

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