coolify_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. The description only says 'Get detailed information' but does not specify that this is a read-only operation, what exactly is returned, or if any side effects occur. It fails to disclose whether the operation is safe (non-destructive) or idempotent.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous information. It is well-structured and easy to parse for an AI agent. However, it could be slightly more precise (e.g., 'a specific Coolify project' could be 'a Coolify project by UUID').

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 complexity of the sibling tools and the lack of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not hint at the structure of the returned information (e.g., project name, environments, status) or how this tool integrates with other project-related tools. The agent may need to infer too much about the output format.

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 100% description coverage with a detailed field description. The description adds no additional meaning about the 'uuid' parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('detailed information about a specific Coolify project'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'coolify_list_projects' (which lists projects) and 'coolify_update_project' (which modifies). However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'coolify_list_projects' or 'coolify_get_application'. The description also lacks any prerequisites or context about permissions or the relationship between project UUID and other resources.

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