ArgoCD app health summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what the diagnosis produces (causes, suggested next commands, evidence resources/conditions), giving the agent a mental model of the output. It omits auth/permission context, but with an output schema present that gap is minor.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by the concrete payload. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

With output schema present, annotations covering safety, and the one parameter documented, the description is nearly complete: it conveys purpose and output shape. Slightly more on when to prefer it over argo_app_detail would round it out.

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?

There is a single parameter 'name' with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format/lookup hints beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific verb (Diagnose) and resource (ArgoCD application) plus the concrete outputs: sync/health, likely causes, suggested commands, and unhealthy resources as evidence. This clearly distinguishes it from plain detail/diff siblings conceptually, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly to anchor that contrast.

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?

'in one call' hints that this consolidates what would otherwise require multiple calls, implying a diagnostic use case. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over argo_app_detail or argo_app_diff, nor any preconditions, so usage is only implied.

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