argocd_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses browser opening for SSO and the need for credentials when sso=false. However, it does not mention any side effects (e.g., setting environment variables after login) or error states, which would enhance transparency.

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 packed with essential information: purpose, defaults, alternatives. No filler words. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 login tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers authentication methods, alternatives, and key parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to select and use correctly, though missing a note about output or post-login state.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the 'sso' parameter's default and the relationship between 'sso', 'username', and 'password'. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 verb 'Authenticate' and the resource 'Argo CD for a profile'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'argocd_set_api_key' and 'argocd_auth_status', making the tool's unique purpose evident.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (default SSO or username/password) and when to use alternatives (argocd_set_api_key for API tokens). It also mentions environment variables for flexibility.

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