Argocd List Applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: that sync_status, health_status, destination, and name_prefix are filtered client-side, that the endpoint has no paging, and that results are sorted by name and sliced here — important for interpreting limit/offset and result ordering.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result shape, followed by the behavioral caveat. No filler; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 unnecessary, and the description covers the two non-obvious things an agent must know (client-side filtering and emulated paging). For a 12-parameter read-only list tool this is complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by disclosing that four of the filters are applied client-side and that paging is emulated via sort-and-slice. This meaningfully changes how an agent should reason about limit/offset and filter reliability.

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 ('List applications') and immediately qualifies the shape of the result ('slim rows') with the returned fields enumerated. An agent can distinguish this from argocd_get_application or argocd_list_applicationsets without opening a schema.

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 explains the operational context an agent needs to choose it: it's a listing endpoint with no server-side paging, so limit/offset are applied locally. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over argocd_get_application for a single app or name an alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.

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