Argocd Get Resource Tree

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 still adds genuine behavioral context: the node shape returned, the fields deliberately dropped (networkingInfo, uid, resourceVersion), and that filtering is applied client-side rather than server-side.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the payload shape, then the dropped fields and filter behavior. Nothing is padded and every clause carries 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly stays brief while noting the trimming of fields. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers all 9 params, so an agent has what it needs; only the relationship to sibling resource tools is left implicit.

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 is already documented in the schema (including 'Client-side kind filter'). The description repeats the client-side filtering semantics without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Get the live resource tree') and even characterizes the output shape ('slim nodes (kind, name, health, images, parent)'). This clearly distinguishes it from data-oriented siblings, though it never names a sibling (e.g. get_managed_resources) to anchor the distinction.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The only usage-relevant hint is that kind/health filtering happens client-side, which is incidental rather than a directive about tool selection.

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