list-deployments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving details about 'deployment status and history', which adds some context beyond basic listing. However, it fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a deployment system.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently add context about included details. There is no wasted text, and it avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral details, preventing a perfect score.

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 complexity (listing deployments likely involves dynamic data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and hints at returned details, but it omits information about output format, error handling, or system constraints, which are important for an agent to use it effectively in a deployment context.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is applied, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps in schema coverage.

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 ('Retrieve a list') and resource ('all running deployments in Coolify'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-applications' or 'list-services' by focusing on deployments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools beyond scope, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-applications' or 'list-resources', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for viewing deployments but lacks explicit context or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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