Infrastructure overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the content (status breakdown, currently running deployments) but does not disclose output format or potential variability beyond what annotations imply.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core value ('One-call summary') and then uses a colon to list included components. No redundant words or unnecessary details.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of what is returned. It could mention the response format or example structure, but the current wording is adequate for an overview endpoint.

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 input schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description correctly focuses on the tool's output rather than parameter details, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 identifies the tool as a one-call summary of the entire Coolify estate, enumerating key resource types (servers, projects, applications, databases, services, deployments). This specific scope distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual resource types.

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 phrase 'One-call summary of the whole Coolify estate' establishes the primary use case: getting a high-level overview in a single call. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over more granular list tools.

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