search-applications

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses an in-memory cache and performs substring matching (LIKE) across multiple fields. Does not mention potential staleness of cache or performance impact, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentence defines the tool's action and scope. Second sentence provides context on why this tool exists (API limitation). Every word serves a purpose, no 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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description reasonably covers what the tool does and how it behaves. Could elaborate on cache behavior or result format, but it's adequate for selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the underlying search behavior (substring, cache, matching across fields) that is not captured by parameter descriptions. Also clarifies that 'query' is a substring and case-insensitive.

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?

Description clearly states it searches Argo CD applications by substring across multiple fields (name, project, repo, path, namespace). Differentiates from sibling tools like list-applications and get-application by specifying it's for partial search, and mentions the Argo CD API limitation.

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?

Description explicitly states when to use this tool: for partial substring search where the Argo CD API only supports exact match. Implies that for exact match, other tools like get-application should be used. Could be more explicit about alternatives, but the context is clear.

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