coolify_get_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'Get detailed information', which implies a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not disclose whether the operation requires specific permissions, what 'detailed information' encompasses (e.g., configuration, status, logs), whether it triggers side effects, or if there are rate limits. For a read tool without annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence of 10 words with no wasted language. It is efficient and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a line about UUID source or return value without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimal but sufficient context for a simple retrieval operation. It states the resource type and action. However, for an agent to invoke it correctly, more context would be helpful, such as how to obtain the UUID (e.g., from list results) or the kind of data returned (e.g., 'Returns configuration, status, and deployment details'). It is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('UUID of the resource'). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify what type of UUID (application-specific), nor does it define constraints like format or where to find it. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific Coolify application', using a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Coolify application'), and the qualifier 'detailed information' to indicate scope. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'coolify_get_database' and list tools like 'coolify_list_applications'.

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 implies this tool is used to retrieve details for a single application. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'coolify_list_applications' for overview, or what 'detailed information' includes), nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but shallow.

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