client_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' signals a read operation, and 'including its secret if private' is a meaningful disclosure about sensitive return data that is absent from the schema. It stops short of describing permissions, error cases, or the full response, which keeps it just below a perfect score.

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 definition is a single concise sentence with the main action first and the important secret caveat appended without any filler. Every word contributes meaningful information, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

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 one-argument getter with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the action, and a key edge case (secret visibility). It lacks explicit sibling routing and details about the returned payload shape, but these are minor gaps for such a simple operation.

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 describes clientId as 'The client ID to retrieve' with 100% coverage, and the tool description adds no syntax, format, or example details. Since the schema carries the parameter meaning, the baseline of 3 applies without additional contribution from the description.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('OAuth2 client'), and a scope ('specific'), which clearly distinguishes it from client_list (enumeration) and client_create/update/delete (mutations). The qualifier 'specific' plus the clientId parameter makes the tool's target unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over sibling tools, such as 'use client_list to enumerate clients' or 'use client_create/update/delete for changes'. The intended context is only implied by 'specific client' and the CRUD sibling family, so the agent gets modest but not explicit guidance.

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