coolify_get_environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not mention what happens if the environment doesn't exist (e.g., error vs. null), rate limits, or authentication requirements. A 3 is reasonable as it conveys the basic nature but lacks depth.

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 sentence of 12 words, which is very concise. It is front-loaded with the key information. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a brief note about the required parameters or response format without sacrificing 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 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and implies the parameters are needed, but doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes or how to interpret the response. A 3 reflects adequate but not comprehensive coverage.

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% with both parameters described in the schema: 'project_uuid' as 'UUID of the project' and 'environment_name' as 'Name or UUID of the environment'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is 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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific environment in a project', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'coolify_list_environments' (which lists all environments) and 'coolify_create_environment' (which creates), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools, there is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., needing a project UUID first), nor when to prefer this over 'coolify_list_environments' (which might be faster for overview). The agent must infer usage from context.

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