list-applications

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: optional filters, priority app ordering with isPriority flag, caching (useCache, refreshCache), and client-side filtering for sync/health status. This is comprehensive, though it omits details like rate limits or cache TTL.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds critical behavioral detail. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat brief. It covers main behavior but lacks details on output format, error handling, or performance considerations, which are important for a list tool with many filters.

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 schema covers all 13 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the priority ordering and isPriority flag, which enhances understanding beyond the individual parameter 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 'List Argo CD applications' with optional filters and specifies the priority ordering behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list-priority-applications' or 'search-applications'.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives. While it mentions priority apps appear first, it lacks direct comparisons or when-not-to-use guidance against siblings like 'search-applications' or 'list-priority-applications'.

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