Argocd Get Applicationset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming what the read returns (generators, strategy, app statuses), going beyond the annotation set, though it does not mention pagination or auth requirements.

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 that names the resource first and enumerates the returned content, with zero wasted words.

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 a full output schema handling return structure and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete; the only minor gap is that it does not route the agent to the list/generate siblings or note any constraints.

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 all five parameters (name, full, appset_namespace, include_template, include_applications) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get one ApplicationSet") plus the salient content it returns (generators, strategy, generated app statuses). The word "one" implicitly distinguishes it from argocd_list_applicationsets, but it does not explicitly name that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: "one" suggests a single-object fetch as opposed to the list sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like argocd_generate_applicationset or argocd_list_applicationsets.

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