argocd_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that the tool returns immediately without waiting for login completion, which is a critical non-obvious behavior. It also states that a link is returned, adding useful context, though it doesn't detail side effects or error conditions.

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 highly concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the main action and the asynchronous behavior. It avoids extraneous details while including the essential next step, making it well-structured and efficient.

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 description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior for a simple login initiation: it returns a link and requires follow-up via argocd_auth_status. It doesn't describe the exact response format beyond 'link', but given the simplicity of the tool and absence of output schema, this is adequate. The context provided by sibling tools reinforces the intended workflow.

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 the single parameter noBrowser with a clear description in Russian, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not elaborate on this parameter, but since the schema covers it, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate without additional value 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 clearly states it initiates an Argo CD login via GitLab SSO and returns a link immediately, using the specific verb 'login' and resource 'Argo CD'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling argocd_auth_status by noting that the result must be checked via that tool, making the purpose 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?

The description provides clear usage context by explaining that the login is asynchronous and directing the agent to call argocd_auth_status to verify the result. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools or mention preconditions, it effectively guides the agent to the correct workflow among siblings.

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