Argocd Get Operation

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

Annotations already confirm read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds a genuinely useful edge case: it returns {"phase": null} when no operation has run, which is behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations. This is helpful additional context, though it stops short of describing the full response shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation's core output, and the null-phase caveat immediately follows. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return values, and it correctly focuses on the one behavioral surprise (null phase). It is complete for the core call, though it could note the current-vs-last distinction's effect on the returned phase more explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including namespace/name handling and the project 404/403 semantics. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond that baseline, which is correct but not additive.

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 the current or last sync operation') and enumerates the returned fields (phase, initiator, per-status result counts). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like argocd_wait_for_operation or argocd_terminate_operation, which act on operations rather than reading them.

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 implied by the read-only nature and the phrase 'current or last' operation, but the description never says when to prefer this over argocd_get_application, argocd_get_application_history, or argocd_wait_for_operation, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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