List Application Deployments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the specific return fields (status, commit, timestamps, deployment UUIDs), which helps the agent understand the output beyond the annotations. However, it omits details on pagination or ordering.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by the return fields. Every word earns its place, and there is no superfluous 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return fields. It does not explicitly state that the result is a list (though implied by the tool name and 'history'), and lacks information on pagination or filtering. For a simple list tool, this is nearly complete but has minor gaps.

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%, so the schema already describes each parameter fully. The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond repeating 'for a specific application' (which aligns with the uuid parameter). Thus it meets the baseline of 3, adding no extra value to parameter understanding.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'deployment history for a specific application', and mentions the returned fields (status, commit, timestamps, deployment UUIDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like coolify_list_applications (lists applications) and coolify_get_deployment (retrieves a single deployment).

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 by specifying 'for a specific application', but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions. It lacks references to sibling tools that might be more appropriate for single deployment retrieval or other purposes.

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