Diagnose Application

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about parallel fan-out execution and the ability to query by UUID, name, or domain. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and mechanism. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, input flexibility, and parallelism. It hints at return content but lacks explicit output structure, which is a minor 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?

All parameters have documentation in the schema (100% coverage). The description restates the query parameter's accepted formats but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond that. With full schema coverage, 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 clearly states it is a composite diagnostic that fetches multiple types of data (details, logs, env var count, deployment history) in parallel. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like coolify_application_logs or coolify_get_application, which are more specialized.

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 when to use it (for a broad diagnostic overview) and contrasts with specific sibling tools that provide individual pieces of data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for specific needs.

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