coolify_list_application_storages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states that the tool lists storages but doesn't mention whether it is read-only, what permissions are needed, how pagination or rate limits work, or whether the tool returns a list or single items. The word 'list' implies a read operation, but without annotations to confirm this, the description is insufficient for a safe agent decision.

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 concise at 9 words in a single sentence, conveying the core action. It front-loads the verb 'List' and the resource, which is good. However, it could be slightly more efficient by removing 'persistent and file' if that is redundant or implied by 'storages', but it's clear and to the point.

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 complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is too brief. The tool has a critical sibling 'coolify_delete_application_storage' that suggests storage management is more involved, but the description doesn't hint at the tool's return format, whether it returns a list or array, or any edge cases. With no output schema, the description should provide more context about expectations.

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 the single required parameter 'uuid' documented as 'UUID of the application'. This baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully describes the parameter, and the description adds no further semantics (e.g., where to find the UUID, format hints, or validation constraints). The description does not go beyond the schema.

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 persistent and file storages for a Coolify application' – it uses the verb 'List', specifies the resource 'storages', and distinguishes it from sibling 'list_*' tools by targeting a specific resource type. However, it could be more precise by stating 'all' or 'the' to confirm scope, and it doesn't differentiate from closely related storage tools like 'coolify_list_database_storages' or 'coolify_list_service_storages' beyond the resource name.

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 siblings, there are list storage tools for databases and services, but the description doesn't mention when an agent should choose this application-specific tool over those. There's also no mention of prerequisites, such as the application needing to exist, or what the tool returns if no storages are present.

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