coolify_get_server_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral transparency burden. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but fails to disclose potential limitations (e.g., pagination, error responses, or required permissions). The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to the understanding of the tool's function, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description does not cover potential edge cases, return format, or behavior when the server UUID is invalid. It meets minimum viability but leaves 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage (the single parameter uuid is described as 'Server UUID'), so the description adds no additional semantic value. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 'Get', the resource 'all resources (apps, databases, services)', and the scope 'on a server', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like coolify_get_server (server metadata) and coolify_get_application (specific application). The purpose is immediately evident.

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?

While there is no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' statement, the combination of name and description implies that this tool is for retrieving the aggregate list of resources for a given server, contrasting with sibling tools for individual resources or cross-server listings. However, explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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