Argocd Get Operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape and the empty-state behavior ('Returns {"phase": null} when no operation has run'), which is meaningful given there is no output schema.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what is retrieved and followed by the exact empty-state return. No filler and 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?

For a read-only getter with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return content and even the null edge case. It falls slightly short by omitting how it relates to sibling operation tools and any permission/error context, but nothing critical to invoking it is missing.

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 schema fully documents all four parameters (name, project, app_namespace, include_resources) including their scoping and default semantics. The description adds nothing about them; baseline 3 applies 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Get the current or last sync operation') and enumerates what it returns (phase, initiator, per-status result counts). The purpose is unambiguous, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like argocd_wait_for_operation or argocd_get_application_history.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent is left to infer that this is for inspecting an existing operation rather than waiting for one (argocd_wait_for_operation) or terminating one (argocd_terminate_operation).

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