list_argocd_apps

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

Annotations already declare this read-only and non-destructive (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: KubeAid disables auto-sync by default, so OutOfSync apps are typically awaiting a deliberate sync. It also discloses the return fields, which is useful given no output schema.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence fronts the action and resource, the second adds context, and the third gives usage direction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It lists the return fields (sync status, health, deployed revision, auto-sync), provides domain context, and gives usage guidance. Minor gaps like pagination are not critical for this tool.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (context, project, only_problems), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 uses a specific verb 'List' with the resource 'ArgoCD Applications' and scope 'KubeAid manages in this cluster', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_argocd_app. It also lists the exact fields returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides a clear directive 'Start here for any GitOps question', indicating this is the entry point for such queries. It also explains the auto-sync behavior to help interpret results, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like describe_argocd_app for app-specific details.

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