Argocd Get Version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it returns bundled tool versions, not just the server version, and it can serve as a connectivity probe, which tells the agent what a successful vs. failed call means.

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 zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the secondary 'probe' framing follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 enumerate return fields, and for a no-parameter read tool it is nearly complete. It could say marginally more about failure/error semantics when used as a probe, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required and points at what the call returns instead.

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 names a specific verb and resource (get the Argo CD server version) plus the extra payload (bundled tool versions). No sibling tool covers version retrieval, so it is trivially distinguishable from the list/get cluster of siblings.

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 connectivity probe' implies a usage context — checking that the server is reachable — but the description states no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives it might replace (e.g., versus get_settings or get_userinfo for a health check). Usage is implied rather than specified.

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