describe_argocd_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by enumerating what the tool returns: Git/Helm sources, sync/health status, error conditions, OutOfSync or unhealthy resources, last sync result, and deploy history. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for a diagnostic read operation.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates its key outputs, while the second provides a concrete diagnostic use case. It is dense but 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the main content categories and a clear use case. It does not detail the exact return format or pagination behavior, but for a diagnostic read tool with two well-documented parameters, the provided information is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema: 'name' references list_argocd_apps, and 'context' explains default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already carries the full burden, so a baseline score of 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 opens with 'Full detail for one ArgoCD Application' which clearly identifies the verb (provide/detail), the resource (ArgoCD Application), and singular scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_argocd_apps by emphasizing 'one' application and from generic describe_resource by specifying ArgoCD-specific content.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to diagnose why an app is Degraded or a sync failed.' This provides clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as describe_resource or get_events.

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