client_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only listing scoped to the current user, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, or response format. For a simple list tool this is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word adds value: the verb, the resource, and the ownership scope.

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?

The tool is simple and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The scope qualifier 'owned by the current user' provides important access context. Without an output schema, a brief note on the return shape or pagination would improve completeness, but it is not critical for a list 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 input schema already documents all three parameters (sort, limit, offset) with descriptions, examples, and defaults, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, matching the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('OAuth2 clients'), and a scope ('owned by the current user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like client_get, client_count, and the many unit/application/network list tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: listing the calling user's OAuth2 clients. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives like client_get for a single client, but the scope and verb make the primary use case unambiguous.

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