list_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning response format, pagination, or the fact that this is a read-only operation. An agent has no information about what the result looks like or any side effects, leaving a significant gap for a simple but essential tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any detail about the returned data structure, ordering, or pagination, which might be expected. While the simplicity of the tool lowers the bar, the absence of any output schema or behavioral note leaves some uncertainty for an agent calling it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, the description need not add parameter detail; it would only be redundant. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are required, so the baseline of 4 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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'servers', scoped to 'all servers in Coolify'. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools (list_applications, list_databases) by resource type, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool retrieves.

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 its usage — to list servers — but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions. Since the tool name and description are self-explanatory and siblings handle other resources, the context is clear, but the lack of explicit direction keeps it from scoring higher.

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