List Service Environment Variables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds value by noting masking behavior (*** unless reveal is true) and instance targeting, but does not fully describe return format or error handling. Given annotation coverage, score 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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and scoping. Every sentence 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?

The description adequately covers purpose, scoping, and usage, but omits the output structure (e.g., returns an array of key-value pairs). Since there is no output schema, a brief mention of the response format would improve completeness. However, for a simple list operation with good annotations, this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (uuid, reveal with default and masking behavior, instance with enum and defaults). The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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', the resource 'environment variables', and the specific scope 'Coolify service (Flavor C / docker-compose apps)'. It directly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'coolify_list_app_envs' for single-container applications.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use this tool ('for services deployed as docker-compose') and when not to ('NOT for single-container applications'), with a named alternative ('use coolify_list_app_envs for those').

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