coolify_get_database

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 'gets' information, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention that it is safe, does not modify data, or any side effects. It also doesn't indicate whether the database must exist or what error occurs if not found. Given the lack of annotations, a simple read operation should at least hint at its safety.

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, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, contributing to an efficient and clear description.

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?

The tool has a minimal parameter (one UUID) and no output schema, so the agent has no information about what 'detailed information' means or what the return structure is. The description is vague about the response fields, and with no annotations or output schema, the agent cannot anticipate what data will be available. A more complete description would list examples of the information returned (e.g., status, connection details, configuration).

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'uuid', including a description ('UUID of the resource') and validation pattern. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, but since the schema is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify what kind of resource (e.g., database ID) the UUID refers to, but the schema's description suffices.

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 the tool's purpose: to get detailed information about a specific Coolify database. It uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'database', which aligns with the name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_databases' (which lists all databases) and 'get_database_logs' (which retrieves logs). However, it could be more specific about what 'detailed information' entails, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 it is used to retrieve information about a single database, which is evident from the context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'list_databases' for overview or 'get_database_logs' for logs. There is no mention of when not to use it, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for extensive guidelines.

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