system

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

The description adds important behavioral details beyond the annotations: version() returns a specific structure and explicitly warns 'not legacy { version }', clarifying a potential breaking change. It also discloses 'reveal opt-in only', which informs the agent that sensitive values are masked unless opted in. These details are not present in annotations (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint true). No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the purpose and lists actions, second gives return type info for version, third covers safety and options. No redundant filler; every clause adds information. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 has 4 sub-actions, 9 parameters, and an output schema, the description covers the key points: it enumerates actions, clarifies the version return shape, and mentions safety. However, it does not explain pagination parameters (page, per_page) or how they relate to infrastructure_overview, and the 'confirm for destructive ops' line is vague since all listed actions are read-only. Still, with a rich schema and output schema, it is fairly complete.

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 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so schema alone is strong. The description adds value by linking 'format?' and 'max_chars?' specifically to infrastructure_overview, helping the agent know which parameters apply to which action. Without this, the agent might not know the action-parameter mapping. This goes beyond the generic schema descriptions.

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 this tool provides 'System actions for Coolify' and enumerates the four specific actions: health, version, verify, and infrastructure_overview. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle deployments, servers, databases, etc.

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 gives some usage context: 'Safety: confirm for destructive ops · optional instance · reveal opt-in only'. It indicates that destructive operations (if any) require confirmation, that an optional instance can be specified, and that reveal is opt-in. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings or exclude alternatives. The usage is implied by listing the actions.

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