Argocd Get Managed Resources

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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral detail: diffs are truncated by default, include_states expands output to three parsed manifest forms, and managedFields are stripped from them. It omits auth/permission needs and how truncation interacts beyond max_diff_chars, so not a full 5.

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 sentences, zero filler; the primary behavior and its default truncation are front-loaded, and the opt-in expansion is stated immediately after. Every clause carries new information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema documents all 11 parameters. The description covers defaults and the one non-obvious parameter, leaving only permission/error semantics (e.g. the project 403/404 behavior) unmentioned, which the schema partly carries.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it by explaining what include_states actually returns (parsed target, normalized-live, predicted-live manifests with managedFields stripped) and by connecting 'truncated by default' to max_diff_chars.

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 and resource ('Get managed resources') plus the distinctive payload (live-vs-desired diffs), which separates it from generic manifest fetchers. It does not name a sibling to differentiate itself from argocd_get_manifests or argocd_get_resource_tree, so it stops 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?

The description never says when to use this tool rather than argocd_get_manifests, argocd_get_resource, or argocd_get_resource_tree, nor any prerequisites. The include_states sentence describes a parameter, not usage context, so an agent gets no routing guidance.

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