Get Coolify GitHub App

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Get', which is consistent. It does not elaborate on return format or side effects, but annotations cover safety. A neutral 3 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential purpose.

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 read tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It could optionally mention the 'reveal' parameter's audit behavior, but that is in the schema. No output schema exists, so return values aren't required. Completeness is high.

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?

Parameter schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters with clear meanings. The main description does not add extra parameter context; it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('GitHub-App integration'), and the specific identifier ('by its numeric id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list' (multiple) and 'create'/'delete' (mutations).

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 use when you have a numeric id and need details of a single integration. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'list' for all apps), but the purpose is clear enough given sibling names.

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