get_application_managed_resources

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

The description notes the return format (JSON string of managed resources) and optional filters, but with no annotations, it fails to declare read-only behavior, error conditions, or permission requirements. Sufficient for a simple get operation but lacks depth.

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?

The docstring format with Args and Returns sections is well-structured and front-loaded. Each parameter is described concisely, though the list could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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?

The description covers parameters and return value, but lacks information on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., connection must exist), and default behavior when no filters match. Output schema exists but is not referenced.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds clear meaning for all six parameters, explaining each field's purpose (e.g., connection_name as Argo CD connection name, optional filters for group, kind, etc.). This significantly aids agent understanding.

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 retrieves managed resources for an application, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like application details, logs, or resource tree.

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 get_application or get_application_resource_tree. The description only states the function without context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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