coolify_list_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral context. It describes the action (list) and the return data (summary fields), which hints at a read-only, safe operation. However, it does not disclose if there are any side effects, authorization requirements, or performance considerations (e.g., rate limiting, pagination). It does not contradict annotations but lacks depth.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and output. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words 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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for a simple listing tool. It states what it returns, which is sufficient. The only minor gap is missing any context about pagination or result limits, but overall it's adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no additional meaning needed beyond what the schema already provides. The description confirms that no input is required. The mention of return fields adds value for the user without parameter ambiguity.

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 servers managed by Coolify and specifies the returned fields (uuid, name, ip). It uses a specific verb ('list') and a clear resource ('servers'). It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like coolify_get_server, but the action of listing vs getting is fairly self-evident.

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 implicitly suggests this is for getting a summary of servers, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., coolify_get_server for details, coolify_validate_server for validation, or coolify_get_server_resources for resource info). No exclusions or context for when not to use it are given.

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