coolify_list_server_registries

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does add real context: the Coolify v4.4+ version requirement and the read:sensitive token scope. It stops short of saying whether registry credentials or secrets are returned or how large the response may be — relevant given the sensitive scope it names.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the resource and tucks the version and auth requirements into a compact parenthetical. Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, the version gate, and the auth scope — enough for an agent to call it correctly. A brief note on return shape would close the remaining gap.

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 single 'uuid' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the UUID beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and precisely scoped resource ('Docker registries a server is logged in to and the registries its applications need'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the login/check/logout registry siblings. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the read semantics are unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only 'List' framing and the note that a read:sensitive token is needed, which effectively signals a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when to prefer coolify_check_server_registry or the login/logout variants instead.

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