coolify_list_deployments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope of results (currently running/queued) and notes that it returns a summary. However, it does not clarify if the tool is read-only, whether results are sorted, or what data is included in the summary beyond what 'limit' controls. A 3 is appropriate given decent but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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 with zero wasted words. The first sentence clearly states scope and output type, the second provides an explicit alternative. Ideal front-loading.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that it doesn't mention whether the results are paginated or what 'summary' means structurally, but this is minor given the simplicity. A score of 4 reflects strong completeness for this context.

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% with a single well-documented 'limit' parameter (type, default, min, max). The description adds no additional parameter information because none is needed. Baseline 3 is correct as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 currently running/queued deployments only', specifying both the verb (list) and the resource (deployments) with a precise scope (currently running/queued). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'coolify_list_application_deployments' which handles deployment history.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for currently running/queued deployments) and when to use the sibling tool instead ('For deployment history, use coolify_list_application_deployments instead'). This is perfect usage guidance.

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