argocd_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool probes the API, detects expired/revoked tokens, and returns recommendedAction. This is sufficient for a read-only status check, though it does not explicitly state that it does not modify state or require authentication itself.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence is essential and adds value.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema status tool, the description covers the action, detection mechanism, and return value (recommendedAction). It is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke it, though it could mention potential latency or network dependence.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the tool's behavior and output, meeting the baseline expectation for a no-parameter tool.

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 specifies the verb 'Show' and resource 'authentication status for all configured Argo CD profiles'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'argocd_login' (logging in) and 'argocd_set_api_key' (setting keys) by focusing on status checking and token expiry detection.

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 implies use for checking auth status and detecting expired tokens, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., argocd_login for authentication, argocd_set_api_key for key management). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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