coolify_list_databases

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 indicates the tool returns a summary (not full details) and lists the fields in the result, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (likely safe), whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. Given the simplicity (zero parameters, listing), the baseline disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from return info) but remains very clear.

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 (zero parameters, no output schema, and a clear listing purpose), the description is fairly complete for an agent to understand what it does and what it returns. It does not need to explain return values in depth because the summary fields are explicitly listed. The sibling context shows many database-specific tools, but this tool is broad; the description appropriately sets 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% (no parameters exist), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add any parameter semantics because there are none to discuss. Per the guidelines, with zero parameters, the baseline score is 4, but since the description adds no extra value beyond the schema (which already covers everything), a 3 is appropriate as the description is merely adequate.

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 lists all databases managed by Coolify and specifies the return summary fields (uuid, name, database_type, status). It is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like coolify_list_applications or coolify_list_projects, but it does not explicitly contrast with other database listing tools (e.g., coolify_list_database_backups).

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 the tool is a straightforward listing operation with no parameters, suitable when you need an overview of all databases. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative tools like coolify_get_database (for details of a specific database) or coolify_list_database_backups (for backups). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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