list_argocd_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool returns health and sync status and is a discovery step, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention scope limitations, or describe project-filtering behavior. This is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 tight sentences front-load the main action and immediately provide the practical workflow for discovering an application name. No unnecessary words or filler.

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 low-complexity list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential discovery workflow and sibling routing. The main missing piece is documentation of the optional project parameter, which is a minor but real gap.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the optional 'project' parameter, what it filters, or how the default empty string behaves. The parameter name is self-descriptive to a degree, but the description adds no semantic value for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('ArgoCD applications'), and the key output ('health and sync status'). It also names the sibling tools that consume its result, distinguishing it clearly from get_argocd_app_status and get_live_diff.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this tool first to discover an application name when unknown, and names the alternatives to use once the name is known. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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