Coolify health check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint (/health), but no further behavioral details such as the response format or error behavior. It does not contradict 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 a single sentence, immediately front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant information.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core purpose. It could mention what the response indicates, but for a health check, 'Check that the API is up' sufficiently implies the result. With annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough.

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 0 parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given there are none. The baseline of 4 applies per the rubric.

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 tool's function: 'Check that the Coolify API is up (GET /health).' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Coolify API'), and explicitly mentions the HTTP endpoint, which uniquely distinguishes it from all sibling tools that focus on managing resources, projects, servers, or deployments.

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 implies usage: it is a health check for the API, so an agent can infer it should be used to verify API availability before other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, though no other sibling tool serves this purpose.

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