Argocd Get Revision Metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the returned field list but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or how a missing revision is handled, so it adds only modest value.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and field list front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though the terse colon-list form leaves no room for context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the schema covers parameters fully. However, for a 6-parameter tool, the description provides no usage context or disambiguation from sibling reads, leaving it minimally adequate.

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 already documents all six parameters in detail (namespace/name handling, 404/403 semantics, source_index, version_id). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3.

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 ('Get') and resource ('commit metadata for a revision') and enumerates the fields returned (author, date, message, tags, signature). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools like argocd_get_application_history, but it does not explicitly contrast itself against 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as argocd_get_application_history or argocd_get_manifests. No prerequisites or context of use are stated.

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