Argocd Wait For Operation

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 genuinely non-obvious behavior: it never errors on timeout and instead returns timed_out=true with the latest operation, sync, and health — an important contract for a polling tool. It omits any note on poll load or server-side cost, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core behavior (poll until terminal/disappears/times out) is front-loaded, and the timeout contract follows immediately.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description carries only the burden of the polling semantics, which it discharges well. It could be marginally stronger by noting typical sequencing (e.g., call after sync/rollback/terminate), but nothing essential to correct invocation 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%, so all five parameters (name, project, app_namespace, timeout_seconds, poll_interval_seconds) are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Names a specific verb+resource (poll an application's operation) and states the exact termination conditions: terminal phase, disappearance, or timeout. This clearly distinguishes it from the single-shot argocd_get_operation and from the action tools like argocd_sync_application.

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 conveys clear usage context: this is the tool to call when you need to block until an operation finishes rather than sample it once. However, it never explicitly names the alternative (argocd_get_operation) or states when not to use it, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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