describe-argocd-endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation performed, without mentioning safety (read-only, idempotent), authentication requirements, or side effects. The agent cannot infer that this is a safe 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?

Single sentence, no filler words, directly conveys the tool's function. Every word 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?

Despite only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the format or structure of the returned 'full parameter documentation', nor does it hint at how the tool relates to sibling tools like 'search-argocd-endpoints'. The description leaves the agent needing to infer too much.

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%, providing baseline descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'from swagger', which is redundant given the context. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get full parameter documentation for an Argo CD API endpoint from swagger.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('parameter documentation for an endpoint'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search-argocd-endpoints' which likely search or list endpoints.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search-argocd-endpoints' or 'call-argocd-api'. The description does not specify prerequisites, such as having the endpoint path/method or operationId known, nor does it suggest when not to use it.

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