coolify_validate_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'validate' which implies a read-only check, but does not clarify if any side effects occur (e.g., connectivity tests), what permissions are needed, or expected outcomes. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 phrase with no redundant words. It is efficient, though it could be slightly expanded 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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites for validation. A user would need to guess the expected behavior.

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 coverage is 100% with the uuid parameter described as 'Server UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No extra context like format or validation rules is provided.

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 action 'Validate' and the resource 'server connectivity and Docker prerequisites'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like coolify_get_server (which retrieves info) and coolify_create_server (which creates). However, it could be more specific about what validation entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools (e.g., coolify_get_server, coolify_update_server), there is no mention of contexts where validation is appropriate or unnecessary.

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