Coolify: List applications

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's job is lighter. It does add real value by disclosing the default compact output versus full Coolify payloads, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, what fields the compact form contains, or how limit interacts with results.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the default output behavior. The bracketed "[UNIFIED]" token is the only wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does so only at a high level (compact vs. full). For a 6-parameter listing tool, the filtering parameters (tag, name, limit, fields) are left entirely unexplained, which is the main completeness gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the parameter count is 6 with only one required, so the schema is structurally simple. The description explains the most decision-relevant parameter (include_details) and its default behavior, though tag, name, limit, and fields remain undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List Coolify applications") that is clearly separable from siblings like coolify_list_databases or coolify_list_app_deployments. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is internal jargon that adds no meaning, and the resource scope (one site? all sites?) is left implicit.

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 only routing guidance is the include_details conditional, which is genuinely useful for choosing output shape. However, nothing states when to reach for this tool versus the many sibling list tools (envs, deployments, projects), and no preconditions are given for the required site parameter.

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