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 safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that results are application paths with their config type, which tells the agent roughly what comes back, but says nothing about pagination or repository access requirements despite the openWorldHint network call.

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 sentence with the list action and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 no output schema the description carries some burden for describing returns, and it only gestures at the result shape (paths plus config type) without saying how revision/app_project filtering affects results. For a 5-parameter discovery tool it is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 syntax, format or scoping detail beyond that, 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 ("application paths ... discoverable in a repository"), and notes the config-type detail returned. It implicitly separates itself from sibling list tools like argocd_list_repositories (repos, not apps within a repo), but never makes that distinction explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. credential/repo access requirements), and no routing to alternatives such as argocd_list_repositories or argocd_get_repository_refs. The agent must infer the discovery use case on its own.

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