Argocd Get Settings

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 genuinely new behavioral context that annotations cannot convey: the default response is a slim view that drops OIDC/Dex config and UI banner fields.

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 with no filler. The returned fields are front-loaded and the slim-view caveat follows immediately, giving an agent the key behavior without scrolling.

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 values need not be spelled out. Between the listed payload fields, the slim-vs-full tradeoff, and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the `full` flag is documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above that by explaining the consequence of the default mode — exactly which fields are omitted in the slim view — which clarifies what `full=true` actually recovers.

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 server settings) and enumerates the payload contents: URL, enabled features, tracking method, plugin names. This clearly separates it from siblings like argocd_get_version or argocd_get_userinfo, 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?

The description says what is returned but never when to reach for this tool versus argocd_get_version, argocd_get_userinfo, or argocd_can_i. Usage is only implied by the resource name, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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