coolify_list_applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a 'summary' with four fields, which implies a lightweight read operation. It does not mention side effects, performance characteristics, or whether authentication is required. The lack of annotation support means the description carries the burden, and while it is adequate for a simple list, it omits details like whether it returns all applications or requires a team context.

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, well-formed sentence containing all essential information: what the tool does and what it returns. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the action. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 it is a simple, parameterless list tool, the description is mostly complete. It identifies the resource type and the fields returned. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., all applications across all projects or teams), mention pagination, or indicate if the list is sorted. Without an output schema, slightly more detail on returned data would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the description's role is minimal. It adds value by explaining the output fields (uuid, name, status, fqdn), which is helpful for the agent to understand what data will be returned. This exceeds the baseline of 3 by providing explicit context about the return values.

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 it lists all applications managed by Coolify and specifies the returned summary fields (uuid, name, status, fqdn). It is distinct from sibling tools like coolify_list_databases, coolify_list_services, etc., which list other resource types. The verb 'list' matches the function well.

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 indicates this is for obtaining a summary list of applications, which is appropriate when an overview is needed. However, it does not explicitly advise when to use it versus a more detailed tool like coolify_get_application, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations (e.g., pagination or filtering). Sibling tools provide other list options, but no contrast is drawn.

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