Argocd Get Resource

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), so the description's added value is the payload transformation: managedFields and the last-applied annotation are stripped from the returned manifest. That is genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about error behavior or payload size limits.

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 with no filler. The resource scope comes first and the payload caveat follows, which is exactly the right ordering for an agent skimming the text.

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 annotations covering safety and a full output schema plus complete parameter descriptions, the description only needs to characterize the tool's scope and output shape, which it does. It falls just short of complete because it omits any routing guidance among the many sibling read tools.

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 nine parameters, including the 'full' toggle and the project 404/403 semantics, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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: retrieving a single managed resource's live manifest. It is clearly distinct from list-style siblings like argocd_get_managed_resources and argocd_get_manifests, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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: the word 'single' suggests this is for one resource rather than a listing. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer argocd_get_managed_resources or argocd_get_manifests, and no prerequisites such as needing an existing application.

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