coolify_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether the list is scoped to a team or user. The agent cannot infer important safety or context details.

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 extremely concise (3 words) and front-loaded. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, but could be expanded slightly for clarity without losing 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is minimal but insufficient. It lacks context about what 'all projects' means (global vs. team-scoped) and does not describe the return format. The large number of sibling tools also creates ambiguity about scope.

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 schema has zero parameters, so baseline score 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none to describe. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 'List all projects' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (projects), making the purpose straightforward. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like coolify_get_project or coolify_list_teams, but the resource name itself provides implicit distinction.

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 when to use the tool (when a list of all projects is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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