List projects

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 return fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or how the limit/offset parameters affect the result set, which is a notable gap.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and immediately state the return fields. Every word is purposeful, with no filler.

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 simple list tool with readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description covers the essential return fields and scope. However, it omits any mention of pagination semantics related to limit/offset, and 'all' may be misleading given these parameters imply a paged result.

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 makes no mention of the limit and offset parameters. The schema only provides names and types, leaving the semantics (e.g., pagination) undocumented. The description should compensate but does not.

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 'List all Coolify projects' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the returned fields (UUID, name, description, environments). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listApplications or listDatabases by targeting projects specifically.

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: use this to list projects. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like listResources or listEnvironments, nor any exclusions or prerequisite context.

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