Argocd List Resource Actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds examples of action names but no additional behavioral context such as permission requirements, scoping rules, or response characteristics, which is acceptable but not enriching.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose immediately. It contains no filler or repetition, and every word 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what is listed, though it omits the practical relationship to argocd_run_resource_action, which would help an agent understand the workflow context.

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 eight parameters are documented directly in the schema, including required fields and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a precise verb 'List' and specific resource 'custom resource actions' scoped to 'available on a resource', with concrete examples (restart, pause). It clearly contrasts with the sibling argocd_run_resource_action by indicating discovery rather than execution, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 states only what the tool does, not when to use it or how it relates to alternatives. It never mentions argocd_run_resource_action or any prerequisite for listing actions, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is used before running an action.

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