Argocd List Repository Apps

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 only that results are 'discoverable in a repository' (implying a scan), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, nor about cost or failure modes for a bad revision.

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 core action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a tool with five parameters, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a paginated repository-scanning tool the description is minimal – it omits paging semantics and how revision/app_project scope results, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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%, so all five parameters (repo, limit, offset, revision, app_project) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List the application paths (and their config type) discoverable in a repository.' It clearly states what is enumerated and adds the parenthetical about config type. It does not name or differentiate from siblings like argocd_list_repositories or argocd_get_repository_refs, which a reader could easily confuse with this.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The tool sits next to argocd_list_repositories and argocd_get_repository_refs, and nothing tells the agent when to pick this one over those.

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