get-argocd-settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is non-destructive ('public', 'does not require authentication') and specifies the return content (URL, OIDC config, UI banners). This is adequate but could mention rate limits or error handling.

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, zero waste. Every word adds value: first sentence states purpose and outputs, second sentence clarifies auth requirement.

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 simple read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and safety. It could mention the output format, but is mostly complete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats schema descriptions without adding new meaning or examples, meeting baseline expectations.

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 it retrieves public Argo CD settings (URL, OIDC config, UI banners) for an environment profile, and explicitly notes no authentication is required. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with user info, applications, or authentication.

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 usage for public settings without auth, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list-applications or describe-argocd-endpoint. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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