coolify_list_database_envs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is read-only (implied by 'list'), but does not clarify if it returns all variables or only user-defined ones, if it requires specific permissions, or whether the response includes hidden/system variables. The minimal description adds little beyond the obvious.

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 with zero wasted words. Every element ('list', 'all', 'environment variables', 'Coolify database') is meaningful and necessary.

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 has only 1 parameter (well-documented in schema), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core operation but omits context about the response format (e.g., whether it returns values or just keys) and potential edge cases (empty databases, large numbers of variables). For such a simple tool, a 3 reflects it being 'okay but could add one more sentence about response content'.

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%, meaning the schema already documents the uuid parameter's type, constraints, and purpose. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb+resource combination 'List all environment variables for a Coolify database', clearly identifying both the action (list) and the target (database environment variables). It differentiates from siblings like `coolify_list_envs` (which likely lists generic environment variables) by explicitly scoping to databases.

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 vs alternatives like `coolify_list_envs` or environment variable manipulation tools. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the database must exist) or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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