coolify_get_server_domains

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It accurately describes a read-only operation and mentions the output contains resource mappings, but does not clarify whether the operation is idempotent, requires special permissions, or has any rate limits. The tool is simple, so the lack of details is not critical, but still leaves room for doubt.

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 10 words that conveys the core purpose and key output detail. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word earns its place. This is an excellent example of 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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the returned data looks like. It mentions 'resource mappings' but does not elaborate on the structure (e.g., list of domain objects with resource identifiers). No pagination, sorting, or error behavior is mentioned. For a straightforward list operation, the description is adequate but not fully 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 covers the single parameter 'uuid' with a description ('UUID of the server') and validation constraints. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('list'), the resource ('domains'), and the scope ('configured on a server') along with an additional detail about output ('with their resource mappings'). It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like coolify_get_server_resources or coolify_list_servers by specifying the domain focus.

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 usage for retrieving domain mappings for a given server, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., coolify_get_server_resources) or note any preconditions (e.g., server must exist). No exclusion criteria or sibling references are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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