coolify_list_application_deployments

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation (listing) and supports pagination, but does not disclose safety traits (e.g., non-destructive, no side effects) or potential constraints like authorization needs or rate limits. It adds value by enumerating statuses 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence conveys the core purpose and constrained scope, the second adds pagination detail. Every word earns its place; the description is optimally concise and front-loaded.

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?

Parameters are fully covered, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what fields are returned (e.g., deployment ID, timestamps). It only says 'deployment history' without structure, which is insufficient for complete tool understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the result includes all statuses and mentioning pagination, which directly relates to the skip/take parameters. This goes beyond mere schema repetition, justifying a 4.

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 'List deployment history for a specific application' with explicit mention of included statuses, distinguishing it from the generic coolify_list_deployments sibling. However, it does not explicitly differentiate using the sibling's name, leaving some reliance on the tool name itself.

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 use when targeting a specific application via UUID, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives like coolify_list_deployments for broader queries. The context is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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