Argocd Get Manifests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description usefully adds that the manifests are the rendered desired state and that output is parsed into objects and paged, but it omits error behavior (e.g. the 404/403 semantics tied to project, which live only in the schema) and any note on page-size defaults.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and appends the two most decision-relevant behavioral facts (parsed objects, paging). There is no filler or restatement of the title.

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 an output schema present and 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to enumerate parameters or return values, and it correctly stays brief. It is nearly complete for an 8-parameter read tool; only the absence of any sibling routing or error-context keeps it short of full marks.

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 every parameter, including the client-side kind/resource_name filters and the project 404/403 note, is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get the rendered desired manifests for a revision', and adds qualifiers ('rendered desired', 'parsed into objects', 'paged') that differentiate it from a raw live-resource fetch. It does not, however, name or contrast with the closest siblings such as argocd_get_managed_resources or argocd_get_resource, leaving that distinction to be inferred.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The phrase 'for a revision' faintly implies the revision-rendering use case, but an agent gets no signal about when to prefer this over argocd_get_managed_resources (live resources) or argocd_get_application.

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