list-identity-provider-mappers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists all mappers for a specific identity provider (a scoping constraint), but does not mention permission requirements, response format, or side effects. 'List' implies read-only, but no explicit statement.

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?

Single sentence, grammatically correct, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Zero waste.

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 2-parameter list tool, the description and schema cover the essentials. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it doesn't describe the return value or any behavioral constraints beyond the listing. It's adequate but has gaps.

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 already covers both parameters with clear descriptions ('Identity provider alias', 'Realm name'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'all mappers for an identity provider', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get-identity-provider-mapper (singular). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it's not a 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get-identity-provider-mapper or list-identity-provider-mapper-types. It simply states what it does without context or exclusions.

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