argocd_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: default SSO login via the CLI that opens a browser immediately, and that it should be called directly when SSO expires. However, it does not detail other potential behaviors like network requirements or side effects, but the given context is sufficient for typical usage.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides necessary context: default behavior, situational usage, and alternatives. It does not explain return values, but for an authentication tool, success/failure can be reasonably inferred. Overall, it covers the key contextual needs.

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 covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as mentioning SSO as default. Baseline is 3 for high coverage, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Authenticate to Argo CD for a profile.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like argocd_set_api_key by explicitly noting when to use SSO via the CLI and when to use API keys. It also mentions that when SSO expires, this tool should be called directly, differentiating it from alternative authentication methods.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'When SSO expires, call this directly — do not try API keys first.' It also directs users to use argocd_set_api_key or environment variables for API token authentication, making the tool's role clear.

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