List servers

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with both. The description adds value by disclosing the output attributes (IP, reachability, proxy type), which helps the agent interpret results, though it leaves minor ambiguity about whether unreachable servers are included in the list.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by scope and output fields. No filler; every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool, the description names the resource, scope, and principal output fields, which is sufficient given the readOnly and openWorld annotations. With no output schema, the description carries the return expectations and does so, though pagination behavior and reachability semantics remain unstated.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to elaborate. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description needs no parameter detail; it instead clarifies what the returned records contain, which is the meaningful semantic content here.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('servers attached to Coolify') and enumerates the returned attributes (IP, reachability, proxy type). This differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_projects, list_applications, and list_databases, which target different resources.

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 usage is implied — call this to inspect the Coolify server inventory — but the description never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives or provides exclusion conditions. No sibling lists servers, so differentiation is carried by the resource name alone rather than explicit routing.

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