List applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'List all Coolify applications' and does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only operation, whether it returns a paginated list, or any side effects. The term 'List' suggests read-only but this is not explicitly disclosed.

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 concise sentence, which is easy to parse and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is under-specified—it omits important details like parameter behavior and response format, making it minimally acceptable rather than well-formed.

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 complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or what constitutes an 'application'. Sibling tools like listResources and listAppDeployments imply overlapping functionality, but the description does not clarify how this tool differs in outcome.

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%, and the description adds no information about the three parameters (limit, offset, summary). It does not explain how pagination works or what 'summary' does. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema, leaving the agent without any clue about parameter semantics.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('all Coolify applications'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listDatabases, listServices, and getApplication which have different scopes or granularity. The verb and noun are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where getApplication or listResources might be more appropriate, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'when' is only implied by the tool name and title.

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