Argocd Get Sync Windows

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 the nature of the response (current syncability plus active/assigned windows), but since an output schema exists, it discloses little beyond what structured fields already provide.

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 that names the subject first and then the returned facts, with no redundant or filler 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?

For a read-only lookup with rich annotations and a declared output schema, the description covers the essential identity and content of the call. What is missing is routing guidance relative to siblings such as argocd_sync_application, which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% with three well-annotated parameters (name, project, app_namespace) covering namespace/name syntax, 404/403 behavior and the ARGOCD_APP_NAMESPACE default. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (sync windows) scoped to an application, and even enumerates the payload (can-sync-now, active and assigned windows). This clearly separates it from the mutating sibling argocd_sync_application, though it does not name any sibling to sharpen 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'whether it can sync now' framing suggests checking windows before invoking argocd_sync_application, but the description never says when to use this versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist.

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