Argocd List Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned content (counts, role names, sync-window count), but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or the cost of openWorld discovery.

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 resource and the returned shape front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough that a little more routing context could have been included without bloat.

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 need not explain return values, and it correctly signals the slim return shape. For a zero-required-param read-only list tool this is nearly complete; only the distinction from argocd_get_project 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – name, limit and offset are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter detail (e.g. name matching semantics), 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 (List) and resource (projects) and further specifies the shape of what is returned (slim rows with repo/destination counts, role names, sync-window count). It implicitly contrasts with the singular argocd_get_project, but never names the sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase 'slim rows' implies this is a lightweight overview tool, suggesting use when a summary is wanted rather than full project detail, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given and no alternative is named.

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