coolify_get_version

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

There are no annotations to indicate read-only or destructive behavior, and the description does not disclose whether this is a safe, read-only operation. For a simple getter, it likely is read-only, but without explicit statement or annotations, the agent must assume. The description also does not mention any potential side effects (e.g., network call to external service, cost implications), though for a simple version check, these are unlikely. The description is minimal, providing no behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 one short sentence: 'Get the Coolify instance version'. It is extremely concise, front-loaded, and contains zero wasted words. It perfectly matches the tool's trivial nature – a simple getter with no parameters. There is no superfluous information, making it ideal for quick parsing by an agent.

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's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no complex logic), the description is adequate but not complete. It tells what it does, but it doesn't explain what the agent should expect as output (e.g., a string version like '4.0.0' or a JSON object). Since there's no output schema, the description could have provided a hint about the return format. Also, it doesn't mention that this might be a read-only operation, which is a minor gap. Overall, it's sufficient for a trivial tool but leaves a few details to inference.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage by definition, as there's nothing to cover). The description correctly implies that no inputs are needed, which is sufficient. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description inherently does not need to add parameter semantics. A score of 4 is given because the description clearly signals 'no arguments required' by its simple phrasing, avoiding any confusion about needing input.

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 function: to retrieve the Coolify instance version. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'Coolify instance version' are specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on applications, databases, or servers. It lacks a bit of nuance (e.g., what 'version' refers to – API version vs. software version), but it's clear enough for an agent to understand its primary purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus others. It does not mention that this is a general-purpose utility to check the Coolify installation's version, nor does it explain that it might be useful before other operations to verify compatibility. Without any context on when to call it (e.g., initial setup, troubleshooting), an agent might overlook it or call it inappropriately. No alternatives are named, but given its uniqueness (no other sibling seems to retrieve instance version), the lack of exclusions is less critical.

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