get_application_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It's a read-only operation (View) which is evident from the description. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior, how many entries are returned by default, or whether results include only successful deployments. The output schema exists which reduces the burden somewhat.

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?

Three sentences total, no wasted words. First sentence states the purpose, second details content, third provides practical use cases. Very well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool has a good output schema and describes the purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and 0% param coverage, it could clarify which parameters are optional and how limit interacts with the tool's output. Given it's a history-viewing tool with an output schema, it's roughly adequate but could mention default history depth or ordering (e.g., newest first).

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%, meaning parameters (name, limit, instance) are only described at the schema level with brief descriptions ('Application name', 'Maximum number of history entries', 'ArgoCD instance name'). The tool description mentions revision, timestamp, initiator which relates to what the history contains but doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the moderate complexity.

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 verb (View) and resource (deployment history) with specific content (commit info, timestamps, revision, initiator). It distinguishes from siblings like get_application_status and get_application_logs which focus on different aspects, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is clear and specific.

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 provides a clear usage context ('Useful for understanding recent changes and finding rollback targets') which implies the tool is for investigation/history purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or differentiate it from get_application_status or get_application_logs among siblings. The context is implied but not explicit.

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