get-client-scope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior, required permissions, or what 'details' entails. It lacks context about return format or error semantics.

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 sentence that is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 getter with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, which would be helpful even for a straightforward read operation, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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% for both parameters (realm and clientScopeId) with clear descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies; it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('client scope'), specifying it's for a 'specific' one, which distinguishes it from list, create, update, and delete operations. It could be more explicit that it fetches by ID, but the schema clarifies the identifier parameter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-client-scopes. It doesn't state prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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