Diagnose Server

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

Description adds context that the tool runs multiple fetches in parallel, which is beyond annotations. Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature, so the bar is lower. The description provides useful behavioral insight.

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, no fluff. The first sentence conveys the action and scope, and the second specifies the accepted input types. Every word earns its place.

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 composite nature and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does (fetches multiple data types, runs validation). It could mention that it bundles several operational steps, but overall it is sufficient.

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% for all three parameters. The description mentions that the 'query' parameter accepts UUID, name, or IP, which mirrors the schema description. No additional meaning is added for 'reveal' or 'instance' beyond what is already in the schema.

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's a composite diagnostic that fetches details, resources, domains, and runs connectivity validation in parallel. This distinguishes it from individual tools like coolify_get_server, coolify_server_domains, and coolify_validate_server.

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 usage for diagnosing a server but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like coolify_get_server or coolify_validate_server. No 'when-not' guidance is provided.

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